NPR logo

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
Whereto, Clinton Supporters?

Whereto, Clinton Supporters?

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">

What's next for Hillary's faithful? Source: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Source: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

Back in March, a Gallup poll showed that "a sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination." If the general election was between McCain and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), 28 percent of voters who supporter Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said they would vote for McCain.

Now that the Clinton campaign is ending, millions of voters have to decide whether they'll support the presumptive Democratic nominee, Obama, or his Republican challenger, McCain. A vocal part of that group has said that they won't vote in the general election. Another perhaps-equally-vocal part of that group has said that they will vote for McCain.

If you supported Clinton, who do you plan to vote for? Is your vote up for grabs? What can McCain and Obama do to get your vote? And what do they have to do to make you an enthusiastic supporter?



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

This is a decisive moment for the Democratic party. Will it follow democracy or will it follow a big-man, good ol' boy philosophy? I am astonished how much the media elite and the democratic elite worry about the bruised ego of a man; thus, we must assert the illusion that he has won through his campaigning the nomination outright. Fact is, it was a tie, and as such, they both need to be honored by being put on the ticket. I will not vote for him unless democracy and her constituency is honored.

Sent by Elena Levy-Navarro | 2:17 PM | 6-5-2008

Florida and Michigan were illegitimate primaries. Which makes the nomination of the Democratic party illegitimate. I am a hardcore extreme liberal young male but I will vote for Mr. McCain. I would rather send a message against the violation of Democratic principles. All votes need to count---they did not. The primaries had to be redone---they were not. A Democrat will not get me vote, because they aren't Democratic!

Democrats plea-bargained our freedoms and right to vote and have it count---in the same manner Mr. Bush disregarded liberties, for his perceived greater good, the war on terror. It is disgraceful and we should take a stand against winning at any cost.

Sent by Scott M. | 2:17 PM | 6-5-2008

You're not just electing a president, you are in turn electing at least 3 new supreme court justices.

Sent by Steve Motter | 2:17 PM | 6-5-2008

With regard to women, McCain is anti-choice. I don't know if he was against a woman's right to have an abortion while he was having affairs outside his marriage, but he has adopted that stance now. An abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family, physician and her faith community. It's not something to be decided by an old man.

Sent by chicago listener | 2:18 PM | 6-5-2008

Any one who supports McCain because "he will get things done" is not considering WHAT he'll get done. He will keep us at war, He is anti-choice, anti-worker, anti-universal health care, anti-Labor, and favors policies that will continue to enrich the top 1% and beggar the rest of us. How can anyone who supported Hillary Clinton support such policies?

Sent by mckenzee mccoy | 2:20 PM | 6-5-2008

I am stunned by the lack of interest in issues by the last two callers. It seems more important to them that something gets done than the RIGHT thing gets done. Mckain and Obama's platforms couldn't be any more different - why aren't these people considering that?

Sent by Fred Gardner | 2:20 PM | 6-5-2008

No one who truly supported Senator Clinton will vote for an anti-choice/ pro war John McCain. They may stay home but they will NOT vote for the senator from Arizona.

Sent by mary | 2:20 PM | 6-5-2008

I'm baffled by the people who would turn to McCain now that Clinton is out of the race. If it's about experience, look at McCain's experience. We'll stay in Iraq, and continue so many of Bush's failed policies. And we can't forget that the next president will most likely pick at least two supreme court justices. I can't imagine Hillary would want you to vote for McCain.

Sent by Gary Wells | 2:20 PM | 6-5-2008

What about judicial appointments? Assuming Hillary supporters count themselves at least somewhat as feminists. John McCain is NOT a harmless candidate as regards the Supreme Court, which would be lost for many more decades with more ultra-conservative appointments. Are Hillary supporters not willing to put their egos aside to see the threat to privacy that McCain's judicial appointments would represent?

Sent by Peter | 2:21 PM | 6-5-2008

I've been a Hillary for President supporter for years. I met her at a book signing and asked her to run. BUT, after this crazy primary season, I see she is caught up in political rhetoric. I just want honesty and no pandering to the lobby. Who will I vote for? Well, I think I just may vote for Nader. He's not afraid to speak up for what's right.

Sent by Krista | 2:22 PM | 6-5-2008

I think it ironic that many women who voted for Hillary based on her gender or her support of woman's rights would vote for John McCain, a wealthy, white Republican who stands in opposition to many of those issues.

Sent by Keith | 2:23 PM | 6-5-2008

McCain is a war monger. Women...which is to say, mothers, wives, sisters, daughters...should ask if this is the right war for them to sacrifice their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers.

Obama is the future. McCain is the past.

Sent by Chicago Listener | 2:23 PM | 6-5-2008

I hope no one thinks Hillary should be VP which is why I created

Hillary should campaign for Obama but she would undermine his change message
if she were on the ticket.

Sent by James Tyler | 2:23 PM | 6-5-2008

I understand that Clinton is experienced, but is everyone forgetting the mid-90's when Bill Clinton was girdlocked with a House and Senate of Republicans. Hillary or Obama can get things done with Democrats in the House and Senate, but only Obama would be able to make moves happen if the Republicans gained control again. John McCain will be gridlocked with Democrats in the House and Senate, because he's become far more conservative since his 2000 bid.

Also, no one in Washington was more experinced in government than Rumsfeld and Cheney, and we see how they screwed up Iraq!

When did intellect stop counting? Obama was the only Democratic candidate who was able to give whole answers that didn't pander, but really focused on the problems this nation has and how we can fix them.

Americans also need to take a good look at Obama's experience being a community organizer and what that taught him about real Americans.

Some Clinton supporters just like they have a bad case of sour grapes.

Sent by Mo | 2:23 PM | 6-5-2008

RE: Debunking Mary, the caller. She's a Republican plant. First, this is not the "Democrat" Party. Next, if you can't pronounce Illinois, NOT Ill-in-Noise, you probably don't know the state or the politics, or Barack Obama. Let's not succumb to the Republican/Rove shenanigans. Americans must start trusting their instincts and recognize character, integrity, and competence. Something we haven't seen for awhile.

Sent by Jan Billhartz | 2:23 PM | 6-5-2008

I'm not willing to just lay down and vote for a candidate that I'm not so sure is qualified, just because the party nominated him. I'm a Clinton supporter, who feels that she is the best candidate. I don't feel at this point that Obama is qualified, so I'm undecided now. He's going to have to PROVE that he's qualified, if he doesn't then I'm voting for McCain, because I know he has the experience.

Sent by Joe | 2:24 PM | 6-5-2008

I voted for Hillary, and it just amazes me that some people would be willing to vote for McCain. I wouldn't touch the Republican candidate with a ten foot pole! Just look at what Bush has done to this country. I will absolutely be voting for Obama this November.

Sent by Jesse Garrison | 2:24 PM | 6-5-2008

I would not vote for the ticket if Hillary were on it! I don't trust her at all and I believe she would do everything in her power to see him fail and put herself in the limelight. She and Bill have destroyed any chance to restore my admiration after this election process.

p.s. I am one of those Old Whte Women, but I support Barack Obama WITHOUT Hillary!

Sent by Kathi Yenney | 2:24 PM | 6-5-2008

All those voting for McCain should be then drafted and serve in Iraq.

Sent by Anna | 2:25 PM | 6-5-2008

Those Clinton supporters who have pledged their support to John McCain instead of the Barak Obama do so simply because they are uncomfortable with voting for a person of color. Given what is at stake for the next President, [Supreme Court appointments, Iraq War, energy policy, jobs, immgration] I can see no other legitimate reason to even consider voitng for the Republican nominee.

Sent by Gig Brown | 2:25 PM | 6-5-2008

I would say that regardless of who you supported in the primaries, voting for McCain vs. Obama comes down to one factor:

If you believe that this country can be better than it is today, then you'll vote for Obama.

If you are more concerned with maintaining the status quo, then you will vote for McCain.

This speaks directly to the differences in young/old voting demographics.

Sent by Matt Traxler | 2:26 PM | 6-5-2008

I wanted to be a Hilary supporter in the beginning, but the longer she went on, the less able I found myself to support her. (I live in Kentucky so my primary was late in the game.) I cannot believe she wants her supporters to vote for McCain over Obama and I cannot understand why she is dragging this on. At this point, I would not support Hillary for Vice President.

Sent by Debbie Bogenschutz | 2:26 PM | 6-5-2008

I will vote for Obama. Think about the issues and the smart Dems available to him who could be in the dream cabinet. Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Clinton, Nunn, etc.

Sent by Sara Spiegel | 2:26 PM | 6-5-2008

Demo party tends to see "membership" as all or nothing. I agree with Demos on may issues but I agree with Reps on many others. Examples are freedom of Choice and right to bare arms.

When my issues are split by the candidates I use other reasons to vote.

Barry Shoetoro has made too many poor decisions, like voting present to be my candidate.

Sent by Bob | 2:26 PM | 6-5-2008

The policy differences between Mr. Obama Mrs. Clinton are minute compared to those of Mr. McCain. Any pro-choice woman willing to cross party lines to vote for a pro-life republican like McCain is simply insane. Think about what you are saying! You would rather vote for a man that wants to tap your phone calls, stay in Iraq for 100 years and take away the rights you have over your own body?

Sent by Lady Genius | 2:26 PM | 6-5-2008

Most Hillary supporters have waited eight years for Hillary to become President. Barrak fails as a leaderif he is incapable of reading the writing on the wall. NO Hillary, no Obama!!!

Sent by Jeffery Chinn | 2:26 PM | 6-5-2008

I am a 26 year old democrat who is female. Like most females my age, I support Obama. My mother-in-law is in her 70's and "thinks" she is a liberal democrat, but like most old white women in this country, she plans to bail on her party in the fall to vote for McCain. As a woman, I am so ashamed of the older generation behaving so emotionally and with such venom and vengeance. I think Clinton's behavior was deplorable over the course of her campaign and I for one was happy to see her lose. Honestly, I think the older white generation is so out of touch with what the new generation believes in and what is important to them. It's laughable at how they consider themselves liberals and progressives, yet they'll surrender my reproductive rights, they rights of all Americans to healthcare, and the rights and lives of our soldiers over soething so petty. PATHETIC.

Sent by Andrea | 2:27 PM | 6-5-2008

I am a Clinton supporter. What does Obama need to do to get my vote? Add Clinton to the ticket. Otherwise I will be voting against McCain.

Sent by Susan | 2:27 PM | 6-5-2008

I supported Sen. Clinton. I will now support John McCain. I cannot support Obama.....he belonged to a hate-mongering church for years, his wife is ashamed to be called an American and he is too inexperienced to be President.

Sent by Patty Knox | 2:28 PM | 6-5-2008

Why is it assumed that McCain is more experienced than Obama? Experience can't find it's way into a closed mind, so there are a lot of people out there who aren't much more experienced at 70 than they were at 30. McCain was born on a military base, grew up on a military base, went to a military academy, and served in the military. That's a narrow base of experience. It may qualify him to be chair of the Joint Chiefs, but not necessarily for president. Obama has a broader base of experience and a more open mind to absorb it.

Sent by Lee Stuart | 2:28 PM | 6-5-2008

Besides experience, there is no understandable reason that a Clinton supporter will now be voting for McCain. Obviously these voters cared nothing for the issues. If they did care about the issues, there would be no way they would vote for McCain, he and Clinton are so far apart on the issues. I have no problem voting for Obama now because I know that his vision of this country, and women's right, the war, etc. is similar to my views and similar to that of Clinton's. Also, I'm a florida female, and am in no way disgruntled. maybe annoyed with the DNC, but that would not make me 180 my beliefs and vote for McCain.

Sent by Jean | 2:28 PM | 6-5-2008

With Hillary gone, I think John McCain will be the best candidate for the Presidency. Unlike Obama, McCain is a veteran, has served in Congress for many years- through many important domestic and foreign policy issues. McCain would be more prepared to stare down a growing Iranian menace, while Obama, through inexperience, may blink during a critical moment and cost huge numbers of lives overseas. Also, McCain will appear as a President willing to fight terrorism and Obama will appear less willing to use the military to fight terrorism. Thus terrorists will be more likely to attack US interests throughout the world to see how he responds. I think McCain will be the best foreign policy President.

Sent by Harry | 2:29 PM | 6-5-2008

Honestly, does McCain's experience really translate as being more effective as President. I think his experience can easily mean more of the status quo rather than change. If you look at past presidents I don't think experience is a wholly reliable factor of performance.

Sent by a.e. fister | 2:29 PM | 6-5-2008

Hillary's only expertise is geographical. She lived in the White House and knows how to find the bathroom. She also knows how to take taxpayer's money to reform a health care system and come up with nothing. Other than that, she has nothing more than the other 99 overpaid senators.

I'm so tired of people who are voting for a person whose entire goal is to become the first female president -- she has no intentions to fix anything. It's all fame and glory for her. The others are voting for her because she ISN'T black!

And what exactly did the one caller think she could get through that other presidents cannot? Perhaps a little unfamiliarity (and Obama DOES have some familiarity) with the system would be helpful. Let's eliminate the "we've always done it this way" and try something new. Because she has had no accomplishments of note.

And, though I haven't decided whom to vote for in November, experience is not always the key -- you can spend a LOT of time doing something and not learning AND you can spend very LITTLE time doing something and learn lots.

Sent by Lynn | 2:30 PM | 6-5-2008

Would current Mcainacrats have voted for Nixon over JFK because of his "soaring" rhetoric?

Sent by Jim | 2:30 PM | 6-5-2008

Sorry, did Todd just say we won't see McCain change his position on any issues? I hope your short-term memory works...

Sent by Todd Sealey | 2:31 PM | 6-5-2008

OK, I'm not sure if obvious to most and it just doesn't want to be sead out loud, but, c'mon, it's all about the race with "most" of these people that were going to vote for Hillary but now they are going to vote for McCain. Please, not very democratic if you ask me. It's already obvious that Hillary and Obama are going to join forces to win and get democrats back in the white house, yet, the so-called democrats are going to vote republican now? Doesn't make sense, unless you are a racist. If thats the case, don't be shy, speak up, so we know where YOU are coming from. You just, deep down inside, don't want a "black" president. I believe all this "experience" crap is just that...crap. If Hillary is with Obama, who knows what they can do? Alot more than a republican right now!

Sent by Sincerely dissapointed... | 2:31 PM | 6-5-2008

Aren't we all missing something? People are willing to jump to McCain because of experience, just because Hillary didn't win the nod? What's experience gotten us over the years? An Obama presidency could end up being a farce, but at least the American people will have opted for something different than what we've had in Washington.

Sent by David in St. Louis | 2:31 PM | 6-5-2008

I am a Clinton supporter who WILL vote for Sen Obama in November. I will not be forced to vote against my interests by my anger. I have some advice for supporters of Sen Obama. If you want supporters of Sen Clinton to vote for your candidate, I recommend that you QUIT BEATING UP SEN CLINTON AND HER SUPPORTERS ON BLOGS! I am particularly annoyed by being called a racist if I express any criticism of Sen Obama. The generation divide in the nomination race is nearly as harmful in this race as gender and race. Young Obama supporters should treat people w/ more respect: less name-calling, less ad hominem attacks. Thank you.

Sent by Mary McAllister | 2:32 PM | 6-5-2008

I cannot believe that anyone else who's suffered through the past 16 years (Republican Congress, Republican President) would think that John McCain - whatever his differences with the present administration - is going to feel they've made some progress with a vote against their own party. And for the issue of inexperience; I don't see that experience in Washington is a great advantage. Sen. Obama already knows how to work in and with legislature. None of the candidates can claim executive experience of any note. Being old or older is no claim of experience either. This is a red herring issue. But we're going to let it play and lose a chance to really put our country back on track. We deserve what we get!

Sent by Diego Gonzalez | 2:32 PM | 6-5-2008

Bill Clinton arrived with no Wash. experience, as did George W., Ronald Reagan & Jimmy Carter. Some of them got things accomplished even with a learning curve.

Sent by Stacy R | 2:32 PM | 6-5-2008

Greetings. I was an Edwards supporter and then a Clinton supporter and I will almost certainly vote for John McCain, despite the fact that I have voted for Democratic presidential nominees in every election since 1984.

I think there's alot of simply flawed, emotion driven analysis among Democratic Party Stalwarts in presuming that I will eventually support the party, or that not supporting the party means I'm "cutting off my nose to spite my face."

The plain fact is that there were substantive differences between Clinton and Obama. Clinton is a moderate democrat, and Obama strikes me as a real radical.

With apologies to your guest, Neal, if I *must* choose between which civil rights will be violated, I will 'throw womens' right to choose under the bus' to protect my right to keep and bear handguns and semiautomatic firearms.

What Obama and the Democratic party have to clearly state to win back my vote are the following. First, Obama must acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment right is an individual right and makes no implication as to purpose; he's always attached phrases like "for sporting purposes" in his new found respect for the 2nd, and I do not trust people who parse words with the Bill of Rights. The democratic party platform must forswear any efforts at limiting firearms ownership.

The second thing they'd have to do is guarantee that within 10 days of swearing in, President Obama would order all American troops in Iraq home to the United States. Otherwise, their Iraq policy does not substantively differ from McCain's.

The third thing I'd like to see but is not mandatory is a commitment to repealing the General Mining Act of 1872. This is possibly the most environmentally destructive piece of legislation on the Federal register, and it was passed in the days when the ginormous open pit mine and mountaintop removal were not standard operating procedures for mineral extraction.

Sent by Mike in Tucson | 2:33 PM | 6-5-2008

WOW! These Clinton supporters are sounding very bitter. They are regurgitating Hillary's campaign attacks against Obama. So they will cut off their noses to spite their face and vote for McCain who is nearly polar opposite of Hillary and Baracks position on the issues. Hillary ought to get them in line or I suppose her supporters will get what they deserve if Obama is not elected.

Sent by Chris Wilcox | 2:33 PM | 6-5-2008

If Hillary and Barack run together it is a slam-dunk for the democrats for 8-16 years. Barack with anyone else makes it a contest with McCane. I'm a Goldwater Rep. (which Hillary once was)which is now closer to Hillary than McCane. I will still support Barack, because I think the Rep. are out of touch with reality. Many, a lot, of my friends, especially will support McCane or not vote at all with Barack does not run with Hillary. When is it the Demo. have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. Does no one remember what Demo. reasoning did to Kerry or Gore? The crazy Demo. primary system keeps me a Goldwater Rep. (the Goldwater tag is necessary to separate from the current administration which had no foundation in Rep. philosophy).

Sent by Dr. John A. Maples | 2:34 PM | 6-5-2008

Two different callers today said they would vote for McCain because, like Clinton, he would be "ready to go" and "get things done" while Obama would be unable to.
For people thinking in that way, I have two questions for you:
1) WHAT will be gotten done? The policies that Clinton wanted to pass are much more similar to those that Obama wants to pass. Maybe McCain will get things done, but what are those things, and how will you, as a Democrat, like them?

2) The second caller speaking on this line said that she thought the Democratic Congress would be able to block McCain's objectionable Supreme Court nominations. If this is the case, wouldn't they also be able to block his policy proposals? If what you say is that you want things to get done, it doesn't make sense to gamble on certain things NOT getting done.

Just my two cents. Democrats: don't cross the lines in a snit. Take another look at the policies and the man.

Sent by Shay | 2:35 PM | 6-5-2008

Just call it what it is, any white Democrat not voting for the Democratic Presidential Nominee is racist--plain and simple. Hillary Clinton didn't run an effective enough campaign to win the nomination--period. The primaries were races for the most delegates and Sen. Obama won--period. Since their positions are basically the same, there is not a whole lot of difference between their policies. The only differences in the two of them is that he is a Black man and she is a White woman, so if the goal in the hearts of Democratic voters is to ensure a Democratic President, VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE--PERIOD. Anything other than that is racist, and even sexist, and I'd say stupid. I ironically, Hillary Clinton's campaign and the reaction of her supporters is stereotypical--crying, whinning and irrational, and now racist women. Turn the page with Obama and vote your party!

Sent by Erika | 2:35 PM | 6-5-2008

This is for the Cuban American caller from Miami. Yes the world is messed up but a large part of that blame is to be placed on American policies!! If America continues to interfere in other country's politics out of pure greed or power, then the world is going to get only worse. Continuing the war in Iraq as McCain would do would not only deplete our nation but would hurt our reputation even more (if it can any lower!).

Sent by RK | 2:35 PM | 6-5-2008

I'm one of the older white women who supports Hillary Clinton, and I will Never with a capital N, understand how someone who supports Mrs. Clinton can vote for Mr. McCain.

If they do, then they deserve what they get or what they don't get. No health plan, another republican supreme court appointee and continued Rebublican (Pres. Bush) policies.

Sent by Karen Byington | 2:35 PM | 6-5-2008

Allegations that Senator Barack Obama lacks experience is inherently fallacious and nothing more than a political red herring originally propagated by the Hillary campaign. Senator Barack Obama has been involved in politics since 1996, when he was elected into the Illinois State legislature.

Sent by Keith | 2:36 PM | 6-5-2008

I will vote for Obama if he extends an offer to Hillary Clinton to be Vice-President. If Hillary declines, I will follow her lead and vote for the ticket that she supports. I trust her experience, her proven strength, and her capacity to connect in a genuine way with the working class, women, Hispanic, and older voters. I distrust Barack Obama's lack of experience (especially because it is coupled with heavy doses of arrogance, elitism, and pretense). Adding another White woman to the ticket (such as K. Sebelius)does little to move me in Obama's direction. I did not support Hillary Clinton as much for the fact that she is a women as for her clear wealth of experience, tenacity and toughness.

Sent by Christine | 2:37 PM | 6-5-2008


To support McCain would be to support everything I stand against.

Sent by Bill Hanna | 2:37 PM | 6-5-2008

All this talk about experience and voting for the individual who has the most to try and make the world and our country a safer, better place. Didn't George Bush and Dick Chaney come to office with a substantial amount of experience? Perhaps we shouldn't put so much credence into what experience an individual brings to the job and give more consideration about the quality and character of the person we put into office. I'm a middle-aged white woman who believes what the world needs now is an Obama presidency.

Sent by Shirley Lute | 2:39 PM | 6-5-2008

I am very concerned about the callers who are voting for mccain for Obama's alleged lack of experience. Leadership is also about picking your advisors and your cabinet and Obama has proved he can do that very well throughout his campaign. Let's not forget that Obama prevailed over a very well prepared Hilary. Besides, Dick Cheney had experience.

Sent by Stephen Alvera | 2:40 PM | 6-5-2008

I am deeply disturbed by the comments of some of the women who called the show. The concern of Mr. Obama's lack of experience as a reason to vote for John McCain, I believe speaks to the larger issue of race relations in our country. I believe as an African-American woman, that the true reason these women will vote for John McCain is because they cannot vote for a black man.

Although I did not vote for Senator Clinton in the Illinois primary, I have always had enormous respect for her as a woman who has achieved great things. But I have been most disappointed in her behavior over the past 48 hours. I thought she would be a bigger person about losing the nomination. She needs to be reigned in by the leaders of the Democratic Party. Senator Clinton needs to publicly endorse Senator Obama and campaign on his behalf to see that he wins the election in November. Although she has stated that will do everything to help him, I do not believe that she will. I think she wants to see Senator Obama lose this Fall so she can run again in 2012. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton's behavior, particularly in the last 48 hours has illustrated that she is more concerned with her own career and self-interest than with the people of this country.

As for women's issues in this country, I believe that by voting for Senator McCain will only ensure the conservative direction of the Supreme Court. This will have a direct impact on women's issues - particularaly with Roe v. Wade. So these women who called in should think very, very carefully before they vote for John McCain for President in the fall election.

Sent by Judith Singleton | 2:40 PM | 6-5-2008

As a Clinton supporter, I will definitely support Senator Obama in the general election. Anyone who believes that McCain's "experience" trumps Obama's organization and vision is looking at another four years of anti-worker legislation, engineered judicial appointments, and boards and commissions stacked against the people in this country who do the work and pay the taxes. I, at one time, grudgingly admired Senator McCain, but those scales have fallen from my eyes as I have examined his record and realized how incredibly conservative he really is. I didn't fight thirty years ago for justice and equality just to let another conservative president dismantle our hard work.
I see the amazing energy and drive of the thousands of young people energized and activated by the Obama organization and it gives me great hope for my grandchildren. If those of us who supported Senator Clinton reject those new voters and oppose this new energy we risk turning away all of those potential new citizen activists. The "experience" of the Republican party has gotten us nothing but deficits, war casualties, regressive policies, and a redistribution of wealth that is terrifying. I for one am not willing to take a chance on experience at this point - give me a well-organized and motivated newcomer. And I take comfort in the fact that Senator Clinton will still be in office to help make that real change happen.

Sent by Susan Reilly | 2:41 PM | 6-5-2008

I listened to this segment, and I'm annoyed that so many voters (especially Clinton supporters) think that experience is critical to the job of President. If there is anything that we have learned from the Bush presidency, having a lot of experienced people can lead to faulty decision-making (Bush was not exactly "experienced" or polished coming into the White House). The Bush administration is full of very experienced people who led us to war and overspending. We're not just voting for a president, we are voting for the entire entourage of appointees who execute the president's vision for the country. I wish people would think more about the consequences of the package deal they are voting for, and reconsider how important it is that the presidential candidate be experienced. Even Harvard research shows more experienced people make more mistakes than novices in snap decisions. I hope voters will put more thought into this decision by November. Who will this person bring with him? Can you live with that package for 4 years? Then make your choice.

Sent by Stephanie | 2:42 PM | 6-5-2008

In full disclosure I do not support or trust Clinton nor agree her kind of experience is good for the country. But for me, the important question for her supporters considering McCain is this: Do you like the direction the supreme court has taken? If so, then vote McCain, you'll get 2-3 more allito's or roberts. If not, put your hurt aside and vote for Obama.

Sent by Joel | 2:42 PM | 6-5-2008

I do not understand why Clinton supporters are being so stubborn about backing Obama. I thought what mattered to them was making strides in education, health care, foreign relations, and ending the wars. Such changes will begin under an Obama presidency -- and they will not happen at all if McCain wins.

Sent by Allyson | 2:42 PM | 6-5-2008

I hear lots of talk about Obama's lack of experience which I don't see as a problem. The president is only a driving factor in anything that gets done in Washington; it is far more important that the president can build a concensus for the agenda that is put forth by the party in power. There will be far more legislation passed if the Democrats have a majority in both houses (which looks likely) and a Democratic president than if we have apposing parties in the White House and the Congress.

Secondly, I believe Obama is smart enough to surround himself with savvy advisors and will also make strong choices for his Cabinet positions. People talk like he is going this all alone.

Sent by Karen - Bristol, CT | 2:43 PM | 6-5-2008

Barak Obama is 3 years older than JFK was when elected. Many of these Clinton Supporter say that they have been lifelong democrats but they can't vote for Obama because he doesn't have enough experience and we can't afford to have someone learn on the job.

But these are more than likely the same people who voted for a younger JFK and thought he was great, although he did learn a bit on the job (remember Bay of Pigs?).

I think the real issue is that they just can't get over voting for someone who is younger than them. They can't accept handing things to the next generation. It relates back to Talk of the Nation program a few days back discussing how many in the Boomer generation can't get over themselves.

Sent by Josh Fairchild | 2:45 PM | 6-5-2008

Judith Singleton---this has nothing to do with race relations---stop patronizing people. Your suggestion, that these non-black women who are not voting for Obama are bigots---is in itself bigotry.

Sent by Scott M. | 2:47 PM | 6-5-2008

Although Obama may not have the "experience" that McCain has, as long as he surrounds himself with advisors from "both sides of the aisle", I'm not worried about that.

McCain is not the maverick that he likes to portray himself as. He votes 85% of the time with the President or the Republicans - a higher average than most Republican Congressional members.

Sent by Gordon Barbosa | 2:48 PM | 6-5-2008

I am a Hillary supporter but of course now I'll support Obama. I have trouble understanding how some say they'd vote for McCain over Obama simply because McCain has more experience. Many of the positions that Clinton stands for are close to my own beliefs which is what attracted her to me in the first place. However it is also clear that Clinton and Obama share a similar ideology regarding where we should be headed as a nation, education, healthcare, tax fairness, etc. John McCain represents a very different set of ideas. I would trust either Clinton or Obama to select nominees for the supreme court and would not trust McCain. This is not a simple popularity contest. Elections determine policy and our future so why would I select a candidate with more experience when his experience has been to lead us down what I consider to be the wrong path?

Sent by Bill Cee | 2:48 PM | 6-5-2008

This response is to those Clinton supporters, like the caller "Mary" who will opt for McCain because he is more "experienced" than Obama.

Forgetting for the moment that the nature of that "experience" may not be consistent with Mary's own values, let's assume that "experience" without regard to kind is important.

So Mary is a Clinton supporter because she is more "experienced" than Obama. And she turns to McCain because, with Clinton out, he is more "experienced" than Obama. If Clinton by virtue of the "experience" that Mary admittedly admires, endorses Obama over McCain (as expected), does not Mary's endorsement of McCain betray her own faith in Clinton's "experience?" And, if it does, what is this so-called "experence" worth to Mary and others like her in any case?

Neal wanted to ask Mary, "What if Clinton supports Obama? How would that affect your vote?" Unfortunately, Mary's call was dropped.

I'd like to know what Mary might tell us.

Sent by Alan Kauffman | 2:49 PM | 6-5-2008

Everyone talks about experience as if it is the absolute measuring unit of one's ability to do something. Everyone assumes that experience translates into an asset, something good. That is simply nonsense. I wonder how many of us have endured, or more appropriately suffered through, an uninteresting course taught by an 'experienced' teacher who could not teach. Or perhaps, we got sick and visited a physician who has practiced medicine for years only to be misdiagnosed. How many 'seasoned' investment brokers have lost thousands, if not millions, of dollars for their clients? How many 'experienced' attorneys have failed to always protect their client's best interests?

Barrack Obama is a candidate who truly represents something freshly unique and who has the potential, if supported by the American people, to rebuild, refortify, rehabilitate, and repair the damage done by corrupt 'experienced' politicians. Can we afford to bypass yet another opportunity to map quest a new route for our nation? If we deny an honest radical break from the status quo, trust me, the cost of gas and food will be the lest of our concerns.

Sent by Bryan D. Freehling | 2:50 PM | 6-5-2008

I would like to make a historically-based case against using "experience" as a criterion for deciding on one or another candidate. There are several good examples in our Presidential past that argue against using experience. Some of our worst Presidents had a great deal of experience in government (which is really what we're talking about here...) and some of our best had little. The archetypes for this are two men who arguably had the most and least experience prior to assuming the Presidency. James Buchanan had extensive Congressional experience (both houses), had been U.S. ambassador to Britain and Russia, and had served in the Cabinet. As President, he was without peer in ineffectiveness and his inability to impact events. At the other end of the spectrum is a man who had served one lackluster term in the House of Representatives, which ended 14 years before his Presidency began. That was Buchanan's immediate successor, Abraham Lincoln. Two other examples are John Quincy Adams, whose term was completely forgetable, but whose experience was vast, and Woodrow Wilson, whose very successful and dynamic Presidency immediately followed his two years as New Jersey's governor - which was the whole of his prior government experience.

Other extremely-experienced Presidents include Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Herbert Hoover.

Sent by David Paquette | 2:51 PM | 6-5-2008

I, too, am mystified by people who will allegedly vote against their own interests out of spite. Neither candidate has Executive Branch or Cabinet-level experience.

The current administration "knew how to get things done in congress"; we simply got the *wrong* things done!

Electing McCain will do nothing to help accomplish Democratic goals. I certainly hope that the coming months bring some serious reflection for these folks and they realize the we've got to focus on results, not vague concepts such as 'experience'.

Sent by Marty Beach | 2:55 PM | 6-5-2008

please please please stop giving these angry, disaffected voters a forum for their grievances. there are many many people who feel strongly about this campaign -- and many who have tough decisions to make. there are republicans who are holding their nose to vote for mccain. there are
edwards and romney and huckabee supporters who have been disappointed. there are libertarians (i speak personally here) who don't find a perfec match anywhere.

and yet it is these loud angry democratic women of a certain age who get the attention / right to demand sops to their wounded pride? it is an insult to the rest of us who also have tough choices to make.

she ran the weaker campaign. she lost. they were not cheated. get over it.

besides: can't we celebrate the fact that many many (new, young, first time, etc. etc.) voter ARE more excited about this campaign than at any time in living memory? that's certainly a bonus for our country.

Sent by laura macknin | 2:56 PM | 6-5-2008

I don't understand people such as the show's early callers, who think experience is more important than a candidate's stance on issues. And, for that reason, they are switching from Hillary to McCain. I would ask them if they would vote for someone like Vice President Cheney over Obama, just because he's been around a long time.

Sent by Eric Levine | 2:56 PM | 6-5-2008

I voted for Hilary and clearly the person left in the race whose views most closely identified with her is Barack Obama. Other than being offended that Barack won, I cannot think of a good reason that a Hillary supporter would vote for McCain or stay home

Sent by Ira S. | 2:58 PM | 6-5-2008

I find it hard to believe that Democrats are really talking about going with McCain!!! Think about the War; Roe v Wade; Economy; Education; Stem Cell; the list goes on. I'm voting for Obama; I would have voted for Clinton. We can't be crazy and elect another Republican. Please please people wake up!!! We need to get back to where the world Respects and Looks up to the United States of AMERICA

Sent by Alice | 2:58 PM | 6-5-2008

In a way I am grateful that Hillary is not the nominee. I enjoyed her ideas, but was not looking forward to Bill. As a transplanted Arkansan, I have had enough of "oh that is the state of Bill Clinton." He interfered entirely too much with her campaign-he had his 8 years-time to be done.
I plan on voting for Barak Obama in part because I believe that he would most closely understand my blue color roots (my family is from the Illinois region and has worked in farming and machine shopes).
McCain cannot possibly understand as he has not known need in everyday American life (if my understanding of his wealthy background is correct). I do value his military service and suffering for my freedom. I just would rather a president that has a deep understanding of my Christian faith AND 'making ends meet' upbringing.

Sent by Bethany W. presently in Arizona | 3:06 PM | 6-5-2008

I'm surprised (and dismayed) by the number of people who support Hillary who say they will vote Republican (or not at all) rather than maintain loyalty with the Democratic party if Hillary is not on the ticket.

It seems to me that such action is a slap in the face to Hillary and what she stands for: positive changes on issues she cares deeply about. Such change will not be implemented in a Republican presidency!

If they are going to leave the party anyway, I suppose they could encourage Hillary to become a third party candidate in the general election, although I think she will have more power and influence to get things done as a senator.

My vote is not up for grabs. Obama will get my vote as the Democratic nominee because I believe in the ideals and philosophy of the Democratic party and believe he can implement them. I think he should choose the person he believes will best serve the country as his Vice President, regardless of what Hillary or her supporters want.

Sent by Mary | 3:09 PM | 6-5-2008

I ask the question "What constitutes a person having experience to be the President of the United States?" If a person is smart then he will surround himself with persons who have knowledge in all areas and be smart enough to make decisions based on that knowledge. And as I look back on some of the decisions that President Bush made he did not acknowledge the expertise of his own aids, he made decisions based upon what he alone wanted and certaintly not what the American people wanted or needed.

Sent by Katie G. Houston | 3:11 PM | 6-5-2008

To all you bitter 50 something women like myself - sock it to O'Bama by voting for McCain, that'll show him! Let's give Bush a 3rd term because we're a bunch of sore losers, that'll be good for the party. Hillary must go to the credentials committee! She must stop at nothing! Rules are not for the Clintons. Has not America learned that by now. Bend them, break them, go to any extreem measures...that's Hillary's way.

Sent by Sue | 3:13 PM | 6-5-2008

I am a Hillary supporter and whether I go to the polls at all is largely dependent on who Obama chooses as his running mate.

I have voted in two presidential elections, and on both voted democratic. However, I can not whole heartedly say that I voted for Gore, or Kerry because i felt they would make a "great president".I voted for both because I thought they would do a better job than Bush. IOW's they got my vote by default.

This has been the first primary that i have followed so intensely, and there are two reasons for that; 1) I wanted to make a more educated decision 2) I was inspired (for the first time in my voting life) by Hillary Clinton. Finally, I saw a presidential hopeful who i truly felt would make a great president. Finally, I wasn't voting by default.

I am not, by any means, Anti-Obama. However, I am tired of casting my vote for someone because there is no better choice given me. Should Obama put Clinton on the ticket I will gladly go to the polls. Should he put Edwards on the ballot, I will consider it.

As horrible as it might be I woul dsimply rather not cast my vote than vote (again) for someone I don't truly beleive in. And to make matters worse... I'd rather see those who would turn from Hillary to McCain stay home as well.
That line of thinking (Hillary supporters voting fo McCain)makes no sese to me. How could you support two views and political stances so exactly opposite. Experience or not, you need to consider "what" is going to get done... not just "if " it will get done.

Sent by Jackie Jackson | 3:15 PM | 6-5-2008

I am deeply disappointed that Senator Clinton will not be the nominee. To gather votes from her supporters, Obama needs to swiftly place her on the ticket and appear with her on Saturday in DC. This would be a powerful image and send an unambiguous message to the Republicans. It would stop the chatter about Clinton supporters possibly voting for McCain. She deserves this measure of respect.

Sent by Maureen | 3:16 PM | 6-5-2008

It is quite obvious that the people deserting the Democratic party for Sen. McCain because Hillary Clinton lost the nomination were never interested in supporting her in the first place.

If they can go ahead and ignore their alleged standard bearer when she asks them to support the Democratic party nominee then they were never her supporters to begin with.

It remains to be seen but I have very little faith in Hillary Clinton to go ahead and wholeheartedly and unreservedly campaign for Obama. She should have left the race a month ago.

If the Democrats lose the White House in November and it can at all be shown to be because demographic constituencies of hers refused to vote for Sen. Obama then she will be held accountable by many in the Democratic party and I will be surprised if she is returned for another Senate term after her current one expires.

I think it is foolhardy in the extreme to vote for individuals when it comes to selecting politicians to support for office. I think it is a fallacy to believe that character matters. I think most successful politicians lack character in equal measure. The only factor to gauge politicians by is the broad ideology which they align themselves with. In my family we are proudly FDR Democrats ever since when my grandfather was a young man. That means that I support Obama because he most closely represents those liberal ideals. One of the most critical reasons for supporting the Democratic candidate is Supreme Court appointments. Justice Stevens is now very elderly and it does seem that the next President will most likely choose his replacement. The ideological balance on the high court such as it is now must be preserved. As it is we already have a court that is openly hostile to the rights of consumers and employees over that of business.

For these reasons and others Clinton supporters must vote for Obama and Clinton must unconditionally and actively campaign for Obama.

Sent by Jack | 3:16 PM | 6-5-2008

I will vote for Obama just as I would have if the nominee had been Edwards or Clinton. I don't care which one wins just as long as we can get control of the Justice department so we can dig out the cancer that the Evangelistic crazy people have installed in our government.
Next up would be the Media and laws to protect the public from the fanatic's broadcasting 24/7 and brainwashing the fools and weak minded.

Sent by dras | 3:18 PM | 6-5-2008

I have supported Hillary since the beginning because I have waited all my life to vote for a woman for President.
Now I certainly will vote for Obama; I care much about the future of the Supreme Court and reproductive rights (for example) and I know he will do a good job in Court appointments and preserving choice. McCain would destroy the Court for sure and with it any women's rights that are left.

Sent by Nancy in Reno | 3:48 PM | 6-5-2008

I supported Hillary, and I will vote for Obama in the general election. As I see it, Clinton supporters who vote for McCain do it for one (or maybe both) of two reasons.

1. They're racist, and will not vote for anyone who is not white.
2. They want to punish Obama for taking the nomination away from Hillary. They really don't care for the country, but only for their own selfish political ends.

The United States cannot afford to have four more years of Bush's failed policies, and a McCain presidency would give us just that.

Sent by Michelle Steiner | 3:54 PM | 6-5-2008

the bloggers are the people you should be speaking with....stop with the paid consultants....
they raise phony issues, and you take the bait

Sent by Sue | 4:17 PM | 6-5-2008

It does not matter to me if Hillary campaigns FOR Barak Obama, I will NOT vote for him no matter what. It saddens me greatly as a life-long democrat to vote republican, but I think it's worse to not vote at all so I will be voting for John McCain. I think Hillary would be a better president than McCain, but I believe McCain, with his greater experience, will be a better president than Obama. Your guest is underestimating the number of democrats that agree with me. Everyone I know personally feels the same way.

Sent by Trisha | 4:18 PM | 6-5-2008

As for the experience argument, the presidency is not, and never has been, a one-man job. It is always important to see who the candidates associate with. The people who will end up on their staff and in their cabinet are at least as important as the candidate.

Sent by Steve Jones | 4:36 PM | 6-5-2008

I can't even listen to the Hillary supporters out there that are instead choosing to vote for McCain. They irritate me to death. This whole issue of experience mattering more than the issues is nonsense. In the last 8 years, where has experience gotten us? We are in 2 ridiculous wars, our dollar is worth half of one Euro, gas is over $4 dollars a gallon, and the rest of the world thinks we are ridiculous. That is where experience has gotten us.

Open your eyes and come up with a better argument.

Sent by Eve | 4:39 PM | 6-5-2008

Michelle Steiner
Ira S.
laura macknin
Marty Beach
Josh Fairchild
Judith Singleton

and many others,

Your analysis on people choosing McCain and Hillary supporters in general---are unfair, unsubstantiated, half-baked, stereotypical, irrational, impolite and downright shoddy. You would better serve your candidate of choice by stating logical arguments, rather then ad hominem sloppy attacks against others.

Sent by Scott M. | 4:43 PM | 6-5-2008

I live in AZ, those who refer to McSame as a maverick need to stop drinking the kool-aid, he will be a 3rd term GWB.

I have always liked Hillary, but anyone with 2 working brain cells can see how divisive she is. Look at how divided the Party is over her?

The experience issue. Please, you have to be kidding. Experienced in what? Flip flopping? McSame was against torture before he was for it. He claims it works, so that confession he signed under torture is what? true/false, which is it?

Some people are experienced at 40, others still aren't at 71!

Those that are upset about not getting their way so will vote for McSame, just remember "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES"! Are you prepared for them?

The election isn't just about YOU!

Sent by Lois | 4:47 PM | 6-5-2008

I am a "old white woman" , jeez! I originally supported Clinton until she shamed Obama for associating with somewhat unsavory characters, yet she is married to a person who lied to a federal grand jury, someone who had oral sex with someone his daughter's age, although he did not consider this sexual relations...) Sounds like a hokey country song.
I am hoping for someone who will absolutely stand up for what is right without wavering. Someone who will admit and say out loud that we need to cut back on our greedy energy consuming ways! When is it our supreme right to drive polluting vehicles? When did the constitution give us the right to blithely dump our garbage into the ocean and everywhere else but our own backyard? When did the forefathers grant us the right to be obese and lazy? I would like to hear someone tell us to get off our duffs; stop eating so much crap (money saving as well); say no to our children when they ask for tv's in their bedrooms, expensive, showy shoes and clothes, and red bull for breaksfast. I want someone who will tell parents and their children to take responsibility for their education and health. Maybe if everyone cannnot afford to buy batteries, electricity, new technology devices, they just might get up, move around, do their homework, read a book, meet their neighbors, play an instrument, and engage in real social discourse. We are the best of countries and the worst of countries and I think we can overcome the worst part by having leaders who stop trating us like the wasteful babies that we are.

Sent by shari | 4:47 PM | 6-5-2008

It is irrational to switch one's support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain citing his experience. True leaders - ie: Bill Clinton - surround themselves with technocrats, advisors and cabinet members specializing in affairs from foreign policy to energy, education, health, economy, etc. What our next president must bring to the office is the ability to assess from those experts the ever-changing issues and their bearing on the quality of life for Americans. This is best done by someone with the brilliant capacity of a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Additionally, it requires one whose consistent rejection of the influence of lobbyists is clear, rather than one whose record of experience is laced with bedding down next to special interests who salivate at the prospect of a McCain presidency - they have a debt to collect.

The issues important to Hillary Clinton are identical to those embraced by Barack Obama and contrast starkly with those of John McCain. A vote for McCain is not just a continuation of the policies and practices of the Bush administration, but support for presidential practices that assume we need another supreme ruler (decider?) in whom we entrust everything so we can go to the mall.

No thanks. I'll vote Obama; for the Supreme Justices who will protect my rights, economic policies that strengthen my country, reasoned approaches to foreign policy and the liklihood that Hillary will have the opportunity to make an impact on healthcare in an Obama administration.

Try getting that one out of McCain.

Sent by Kristin | 5:08 PM | 6-5-2008

Is it safe to assume that all the people who are going to vote for McCain also voted for Bush, Sr. in 1992? He had way more experience than Bill Clinton. If you didn't, why are you now using "experience" as a reason for you vote for a Republican?

Sent by ecotopian | 5:17 PM | 6-5-2008

To me this conversation is really dis-heartening. I understand the feelings or disappointment and anger that some Clinton supports may have and many of us Obama supporters may have felt the same way if he lost. However, those feelings should not make you rush towards McCain without actually considering why you are doing it.

My question to those Clinton supports who will now vote for McCain is why did you support Clinton in the first place? If you were in fact behind her because of the stance that she took on issues and the goals that she wanted to accomplish, as opposed to her gender, why are you willing to support McCain? His views, goals and methods to achieve those goals for the most part are in no way similar to hers.

Because of Clinton's willingness to stay in the race we have had a chance to find out where she and Obama stand on various issues and how they react to certain situations. We have also learned how similar their objectives were. I'd never tell anyone to vote one way or the other but I will ask that all Clinton supporters take the time to see where McCain actually stands on various issues before deciding who to vote for. If the time is taken to examine his stance on issues that affect the majority of Americans some of you may reach the conclusion that he will not be the president to elevate America's image abroad and enhance the lives of most Americans.

I'll close with three points:

1)No candidate who has never ran a country has the previous experience to do so. No matter how many years you served in the military, how much of an integral part you have been in someone else's presidency or how much experience you have as an organizer you will probably not hit the ground running.

2)Not voting as a form of protest is good in theory but please ask yourself if the lives of most Americans will improve by having McCain as president.

3)If Clinton was really willing to be VP she would have conceded to Obama long ago. If Obama does go on to be the next president there will undoubtedly be better places in his administration for her than in the role of VP.

Sent by Looking Foward to McCain facing tough scrutiny | 5:25 PM | 6-5-2008

Trisha. You said you will vote for McCain because of his "greater experience." I'll assume you supported Clinton over Obama because of her "greater experience."

Clinton, with all her "great experience" at the ready will likely endorse Obama this weekend. So, if Hillary's "experience" is truly important to you, and if she were to endorse Obama, you would vote for Obama. If you choose to endorse McCain instead, you prove only that you have no respect for Clinton's "experience" after all.

If so, what does "experience" mean to you anyway?

Sent by Alan Kauffman | 5:28 PM | 6-5-2008

I'm sorry, but even as a lifelong Democrat, there is no way that I am able to cast my vote for Barack Obama. I will either have to write in Hillary's name, or simply sit this one out in November. My personal ethics are ultimately more important to me than party allegiance. Obama's campaign feels more like a cult following than a political choice, and frankly, it's really starting to creep me out, so to speak. People seem to be hypnotized by him without even understanding or caring about the issues. I had the chance to spend some time with him in New Hampshire, and his arrogance really put me off. I think he's come to believe way too much of his own press.

I need a leader, not the second coming . . .

If Hillary is out, you can count me out too.

Sent by Melanie in New Hampshire | 5:43 PM | 6-5-2008

I think it is already past time for everyone who was supporting a Democratic candidate who did not receive enough delegates to receive the nomination at the upcoming Democratic Convention to take a breath, then get their heads screwed on straight AND say six (6) Magic Words to re-FOCUS ourselves on America: John Paul Stevens Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I supported John Edwards and others, but not either Clinton or Obama. Now I will support whomever becomes the nominee at the Convention. I learned my lesson in real politics 40 years ago following the assassination of RFK, which resulted in the nomination of a great Democrat, HHH. Many of us rebels who supported McCarthy or RFK childishly rebelled at the outrage either voting wrongly or not at all.
Result: Richard Nixon - the rest is History.
In 2000 a new crop of people wanting to "send a message" voted for Nader. The message received? Afghanistan, Iraq, Roberts and Alito ... and so many more horrors.
Beware of what you wish for. Think adult!

Sent by Tom Sherer | 7:14 PM | 6-5-2008

After reading these comments it seems to me they are, with very few exception, written by Obamas's supporters pretending to be Hillary's supporters. Most of you sound like the ugly people that wrote comments on Polito and Washington Post and other blogs dominated by a hand-full of very negative, illogical, and very unfair comments about Senator Clinton.

Sent by scvargas | 9:02 PM | 6-5-2008

One of the greatest leaders of all times was a young unknown man with little Experience,who got the people involved to liberate their country.His name was Mahatma Gandhi. Remember also Moses?What is experience, if the people are not excited about their destination.

Sent by Athena | 9:50 PM | 6-5-2008

I fear this election "open season" may bring out the worst in some of our citizens. I was a Richardson supporter, then Edwards. I was very involved with the Nevada caucus but became disenchanted with the infighting, but remain proud that a woman & an African-American have achieved this FINALLY . I, of course, will vote for the Democratic nominee to end the devastating reign of the past 8 years, balance the Supreme Court, &, hopefully, end the war in Iraq & Afghanistan . I hope the Nation will unite & elect a fresh, energetic leader with integrity, intelligence & passion. May I suggest Chelsea Clinton as the keynoter for the Convention in Denver. She would be a wonderful voice for women & Party unification & that seems to be what is needed now. BTW, I am a retired, white, woman, professional with Master's Degree plus post-grad. My husband is a fervent Obama supporter, white, USAF Korean War veteran, retired Fed employee. Why are such labels significant? We are all Americans! God bless us & the planet with peace, freedom, justice, prosperity, & forgiveness.

Sent by JC | 10:00 PM | 6-5-2008

I'm Hillary supporter. I will not vote for Obama, because of his radical associations. I will vote for McCain.

Sent by val | 10:23 PM | 6-5-2008

Many people keep bringing up the issue of experience between McCain and Obama. As a young, non-partisan voter I feel that the "experience" issue is negative for McCain, as this reinforces the fact that he represents a generation and an ideology the US needs to get away from. He represents Vietnam, the Cold War, old fashioned realist mentality which is what has brought the US to where it is today and is the antithesis of change. A caller on the show said they thought McCain has more power to move legislation, but what does that matter if there is no change in the actual policies or legislation that will be passed. I would rather see someone who is willing to compromise on legislation and foreign policy than someone who will continue the downwards path that has begun under the Bush administration.

Sent by Roxanne | 1:42 AM | 6-6-2008

I think that people who are still dwelling on the words of Rev. Wright need to engage in a serious really check. Did Obama say those things? No. Have these people never been associated with someone that has said something inflammatory?

Hillary supporters who end up voting for McCain should be ashamed of themselves. Don't be sore losers. Cutting off our nose to spite your face...that's never been a good idea.

I keep telling myself that this country is too smart to elect a man with ideas like McCain's; but, then again, I thought Bush could never win a second term. Never underestimate the ignorance of the masses.

Sent by Anne Marie | 1:41 PM | 6-6-2008

Alan - I supported Clinton for a variety of reasons, most important among them because in her service (as Senator) to the country she doesn't shy away from controversial issues and votes how she believes. Obama likes to CLAIM the he "did not support the war in Iraq" however, quite conveniently, he did NOT vote against it, because he didn't vote at all! He did that with several other controversial issues - ducked out of the vote so that he couldn't be "pinned down" as having voted one way or the other until he saw how the wind was blowing, then "claimed" to be for/against something he didn't have the gonads to vote on. That is what soured me on him, and I find it incredulous that NOT ONE PERSON in the media has called him on that. Not one! He is the "media darling" these days and that allows him to get away with untruths that many of his supporters may not know about. The Media would NEVER let Hillary get away with so much as a sneeze, so everyone knows her flaws. And given those flaws, I still believe she'd make a better president than someone who gauges public opinion before making one of his own. It has NOTHING to do with race. I simply don't like his disengenuity.

Sent by Trisha | 1:41 PM | 6-6-2008

I am an independent voter. Although my politics certainly lean left, this contest has shown me why I cannot join the Democratic party. The light of such great historical events seems to be lost on the significant number of people who plan to take their anger and defect. This appears to be short-sighted if not, ironic. Hillary Clinton has in effect done what many Democrats accused Ralph Nader of doing in 2000 - diverting votes from their candidate.

Sent by Mira | 2:28 PM | 6-6-2008

I voted for Bush twice; and I'll vote for McCain. He'll win with the support of bitter white women. Long live the modern Republican era! Democrats love to in-fight, Republicans reap the rewards.

Sent by Raymond | 3:07 PM | 6-6-2008

Wow. What a bunch of rude comments. I'm an older white woman, a Hillary girl. I have never been happy with Obama because he was getting a free ride from the press, and his ideas seem so "pie in the sky". I also thought supporting a person so liberal would never get us a democrat in the white house. Face it folks, this is a racist nation. Remember the Jenna 5? While a white woman had a ghost of a chance winning the presidency against a weak Republican candidate, a black male does not. We have singlehandedly shot ourselves in the foot by nominating him. And for those of you Obama supporters that say Hillary and Obama are so close, I say look again. Hillary is much more practical and clear eyed than Obama will ever be. That's why white middle class America supported her. It's why people like me hesitate to support Obama. I'd be pleased to welcome a Black woman, or black man who was more like Hillary. As for you young people who "don't trush Hillary", I can't imagine what on earth you base this on. Were you even aware of politics during the Clinton White House years? And to hammer her for every sign of human error and emotion is cruel. She just lost a close election...give her some time to lick her wounds before she has to come out for you to crow over her.
And for those of you who paint McCain as the devil and a Bush reincarnate, remember that he has been a renegade before, and has never been a Bush devotee. I feel his current retoric is to appeal to the far right for fundraising. He is more practical, and yes, experienced in political fights, than Obama.
Who will I vote for in November? I don't know. Each candidate will have to win me over.
Or maybe I'll be a "pie in the sky" liberal and just write in Hillary's name. The democrats have thrown away their chance at the white house, so why shouldn't I through away my vote too?

Sent by Pat | 3:41 PM | 6-6-2008

I plan on vigorously supporting Obama.

I am sick and tired of hearing geriatrics talk about experience being key to presidential success. All Senator McCains experience means is that he has been screwing the world up for a very long time and has yet to fix any of his grave mistakes.

Also his backbone is lacking, yes I said it. He now says he disagreed with the conduct of the war for far longer than he publicly admitted so because of political pressures, where was his bravery then. Senator McCain was attacked by the Rove machine using extremely racist ads in the Carolinas over his adopted child of color and he befriends the White House and doesn't demand appologies to the Nation for these remarks. Kanye was close to being right George Bush doesn't just hate black people he hates the poor as well and the Senator had not the backbone to call him out.

All digression aside anyone who was of voting age in the 70's should have that privilege revoked. You had your chance to make the world a better place and you failed miserably. I'm 25 and I will spend the rest of my life fixing the mistakes of the past few generations and that angers me. It angers me that they have spoiled the purity of the natural world with their greed. It angers me that they have consumed and consumed my generation and the many generations to come into a debt that seems insurmountable. All the while they have so inflamed the world with such greed and excess that we have lost our place as that shining beacon on a hill.

We have a lot of work ahead of us and we need to stop letting the 'experience is all that matters' people lead us into what will surely be a dismal future if they are given the chance.

Sent by Curt | 3:57 PM | 6-6-2008

I am a Hillary supported and a Floridian, I have been dragged through the mudin the past few months, I don't think the Democratic party has been fair or justified in taking away the votes from Florida and Michigan, we all feel like the party doesn't care about us, why should we care what the party wants or needs? As for myself I am very disillusioned and I feel that the press and the party have really done Hillary wrong. I think the least they could do was give her the Vice President spot, afterall, she has more votes than Obama, even without Florida and Michigan! I may be persuaded to vote for that ticket if it happens, if not I'll stay home on election day, and many people I know feel the same way!

Sent by Martha | 4:32 PM | 6-6-2008

Enough already; I'm tired of hearing Clinton and McCain supporters tout their "experience", implying that Obama will be an ineffectual force in Congress and unable to make informed decisions in world affairs. The issue is a specious one, for several reasons.

First: Yes, McCain and Clinton have somewhat more Congressional experience. Their foreign policy experience, alas, has been in pushing through an ill-conceived and tragically destructive agenda in Iraq, based on politics and largely deceptive evidence. John McCain, alarmingly, often seems confused about the major players in Iraq, confusing Al Quaeda/Sunnis/Shiites, and declaring erroneously that Muqtada al-Sadr had declared a cease-fire (rather than merely agreeing to it). Experience does not seem to correlate with competence, in McCain's case.

Obama, by contrast, has shown a clear understanding of the situation in the Middle East from the war's inception in 2003, when he argued that, rather than over-extending our troops in Iraq for questionable reasons, we should concentrate on Afghanistan, then the last real stronghold of a relatively weak Al Quaeda. Had he been making foreign policy decisions in 2003, Al Quaeda would now be an impotent vestige of what it was, rather than a huge force for fanatical Islam swelled by anti-American sentiment in Iraq. Bin Laden himself could not have conceived a more effective recruitment tool than the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Secondly: Obama, contrary to what his opponents are implying, is no babe in the political woods. He won election as Senator in Illinois through a combination of charisma and political hardball. In addition to being a skilled communicator who thinks on his feet and talks in real ideas rather than canned rhetoric, he has successfully navigated much of the political landscape already. How else could he have gone from his humble beginnings as a mixed-race child of a single mother in Hawaii to president of Harvard Law Students, Illinois Senator, and now winner of the presidential primary? To suggest that he lacks the ability to "get things done" is just, well. . . silly.

Third: Since when has the ability to communicate become a presidential skill with little value? Lovers of Ronald Reagan regularly call him "The Great Communicator"; Bill Clinton, likewise, was skilled at bridging ideological gaps. Whatever one thinks of the politics of these two presidents, you cannot deny that their communication skills enabled them to accomplish far-reaching changes during their tenure.

Fourth: Obama will be working with a Democratic majority in Congress, with an emphatic public mandate for change from patterns of the past 8 years. "Getting things done", a concern cited by some supporters of more "experienced" opponents Clinton and McCain, will not be an issue.

Obama's understanding of the nuances of world cultures; his grasp of history and ability to make intelligent decisions based on this knowledge; his record of bringing together people from diverse ideologies; and a supportive Congress -- these factors will render him the most effective president in recent memory.

In short, when that red phone rings, I'd like the person who answers it to be informed, discerning, calm, and a good communicator. No amount of time spent in congress guarantees these qualities. Obama, on the other hand, has already demonstrated them.

Sent by Diane Miessler | 5:04 PM | 6-6-2008

Anyone who says they will place their 'Hillary vote' for McCain is either a member of 'Operation Chaos' or ignorant of the fact that McCain would be a third term for the Bushies. Pay attention people!

Sent by Dennis Buck | 4:51 AM | 6-7-2008

I was happy to support either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama at the beginning of the process. When the Wisconsin primary came around, my wife and my two college age children and I decided on Obama. I still would have been happy with either as the nominee but Obama has won fair and square, as Sen. Clinton has now acknowledged. In a phrase coined by Pres. Bill Clinton, Obama worked hard and played by the rules. I will say that in the last weeks of the campaign, I was put off by some of Sen. Clinton's arguments. They were so specious that they would make a tobacco company lawyer blush. She "won the popular vote". First, that is untrue. There were 6 ways of looking at that claim and she loses 4 of them. Second, the claim is irrelevant. The nomination was to be decided by delegates. They both knew the rules going in, including the rules regarding Michigan and Florida. Obama won fair and square, with a superior strategy and campaign.
The comments of angry Clinton supporters make no sense. Clinton and Obama agree on 95% of the issues. Bush and McCain agree on 95% of the issues. For Clinton supporters to say they will vote for McCain or not vote makes as much sense as hitting themselves in the head with a hammer. But they can do it if they want.
Which will be the bigger group: sorehead Clinton democrats not voting for Obama or sorehead republicans not voting for McCain? My hope is that the answer to the question ultimately won't matter because of the huge expansion of the electorate caused in large part by Sen. Obama's campaign.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 8:51 PM | 6-8-2008

I'am a strong Clinton supporter. Now a strong Obama supporters. I'm upset that Hillary lost....But not upset enough to vote for McCain. You see I have alot at stake here. My husband is serving over in Iraq. I wanted Hillary to bring our troops home in 2009, But now it's up to Obama... Because John McCain is not going to bring the troops home anytime soon..I have 3 small children...ages 3-8.
WHO MISS THEIR DAD... You see I can't afford to vote for John McCain

Sent by LUCY | 7:31 PM | 6-9-2008