I wholeheartedly agree! Why her statement wasn't front leading news all across the country just astounds me. Do we really want a first lady that has, for all intents and purposes, been ashamed of her country?

The Obama true colors are beginning to show. You can only be an inspirational speaker for so long before people start asking "but how do we get there....precisely?" Such a shame it's almost too late.

Since this is mostly a conservative site, can someone explain to me why any Republican would cross lines and vote for Obama who is much more liberal than Clinton? I ask this question a lot. I can't seem to get an answer more than "because he stands for change". "How exactly"? Is normally my follow up question....silence. Then..."he's not entrenched in the system". Still no specifics. I just don't get it.

I submit to you that if Obama gets the nomination (and it is highly possible although I think it won't be decided until the convention given current Ohio and Texas predictions), McCain will win this election. I realize that most think Clinton is the beatable one of the Democrats, but I think once the debates really begin the bright stars surrounding Obama will dim. I have to say I'm having a hard time with this. I will probably have to vote McCain, but between some of his thoughts regarding the Iraq war and war in general as well as his pro life (or as I prefer to call it...anti-choice) stance (just to name a few) I just don't know if I can. Additionally, we don't know who McCain's running mate will be. Now, my mother and father are in their mid-80's and in pretty good health, but I still have to think about McCain's age. I hate that I even made that statement, but I'm trying to be as responsible as possible with my vote.

I need some help and guidance here from my new conservative chat buddies!

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

Brat, I'm experiencing something I've never experienced before in my voting lifetime. I'm 46, and have voted in a whole passel of presidential elections. I've never before had to plug my nose and vote. The closest would maybe have been a vote for Gerald Ford, but that election antedates my voting eligibility, so it wasn't an issue for me. I mean, Ford was just sort of a personalityless candidate. I didn't dislike him. But he wasn't exciting. Kind of like Bob Dole, but even more so.

With McCain, it is something much different. I'm a conservative, as you have noted most of us here are. It's not so much that I'm "Republican" but I'm conservative. So, here is John McCain doing some things that are very much the antithesis of what my convictions dictate. The McCain Feingold deal was just horrifying, and we saw the effects of that in a horrible way with the Kerry/Bush election. Both sides got dinged by that mess. Then there was the McCain/Kennedy deal he tried to strike up, and the outcry once that became public was a turbo-kick to McCain's groin, so he backed down, not because he doesn't believe in it, but because he knew it was political suicide to him. He teamed up with Joe Lieberman (who I kind of like) on a climate change bill. Then there were the repeated votes against tax cuts (which he now claims to believe were a good idea), and that just goes against the grain with me.

So, the whole point of that paragraph (which could be much longer) is that McCain has no problem stabbing his own in the back. Because of that, many on the right don't feel any obligation to support him. That's passive non-support. In my case, I actively reject him because I don't accept his position on a number of issues. So, that leaves me without a candidate.

As you have noted, both Clinton and Obama are to the left of McCain, and Obama is to the left of Clinton. Some have surmised that allowing either Clinton or Obama to win will assure a Republican victory next go around, and have toyed with the idea of "crossing over" to help that happen. The reasoning holds that the policies of a Clinton/Obama President combined with a Democrat-controlled Congress will result in rising taxes, decimated military and a declining economy, which will in turn, result in a backlash against the left; a "punishment" if you will, similar to what we may see against George Bush in this election.

Now, as for why Obama rather than Clinton. While Obama is clearly more left than Clinton, I believe Obama is, for the most part, who he says he is, but then he isn't saying much. I think the guy is a decent man. Hillary, on the other hand is a snake. She will say or do whatever she has to, to achieve her goals. She will step on, investigate, fire and/or smear whomever she must. She will circumvent and break the law where needed to achieve her power. She will undergo the most horrifying humiliation from a philandering husband in order to get where she wants to go. With Hillary, it is, and always has been, about the power. It really comes down to an issue of trust, and I trust her about as far as I can throw cheesecake under water. Personally, I believe having Hillary as President would be disastrous.

With Obama, one of my greatest concerns is his ties to Islam, and his willingness (or lack of it) to stand up to the terrorists. I can almost guarantee you that they (the terrorists) are making these same calculations. And they will test him! And back to those who would allow Clinton or Obama to get elected to allow for negative repercussions, one more terrorist attack on US soil and it is game over for the Democrats. The backlash from such an attack would make our heads spin.

Despite my disgust for McCain, he has that going for him. I don't think the terrorists are likely to mess with him. I don't believe he would tolerate it at all. That's one thing he seems to "get."

I've really rambled on here, but wanted to try to shed some light on what might be going through people's heads in reference to your question.

---