You'd better hope McCain doesn't get derailed. Because if he's the Republican nominee and the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton then he's probably got my vote. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

Make that "DOES" get derailed. This is Blue Oregon, after all.

Huckabee has every right to look further into this matter. Why would someone stop the vote counting with such a close race and 13% remaining? Has Washington had other mishaps like this? This is a travesty!

When exactly was Washington state annexed by Florida?

Here's a hilarious commentary by Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo on Luke Esser's inept maneuver in Washington.

Enjoy :

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177863.php

from Urban Planning Overlord "Because if he's the Republican nominee and the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton then he's probably got my vote. And I'm sure I'm not alone."

Obama will surely make a stronger candidate and recent polls confirm that.

However, maybe even Hillary might beat McCain, described as "Bush on steroids" when his platform becomes more widely known and his personal record on family values is more widely distributed.

His platform in quotes: On the Iraq war: " A hundred years in Iraq." On the economy: " The jobs are not coming back." On foreign policy: "There will be more wars." On Iran: " Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...." to the tune of Beach Boys "Barbara Ann"

Okay..I'm overdoing it here, but since we're talking about McCain, let's consider 'The Audacity of Gloom.' A great video of McCain quotes, with music, it's actually entitled, "A Candidate Inspires":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

Chris sais-"UPO, just to clarify, your choice would be based on evaluation of personality and character? Because there's really not that much light between the policies of Obama and Clinton."

There's a world of difference in leadership abilities, in historical record, (and baggage), and political liabilities ( 47% say they won't vote for Hillary at any cost). Then there's the Iraq vote. That was pure political calculation in my view on Hillary's part. She didn't even bother to read the NIE at the time on Iraq. She follows it up with a vote to support Lieberman's resolution on Iran giving Bush a "causus belli" to attack Iran. Then on Foreign policy she says she would never negotiate with enemies like Iran but accepts the Bush policy of isolation and regime change. I think Hillary is a good bet to attack Iran once if she gets into power.

Then there's the issue of money and corruption. Hillary has taken more money from drug companies than all other candidates combined. And she's supposed to be developing a good health care policy for us! Yeah, that's character, that's judgment, but it's also policy. Then there's the the issue of who's president. She's put Bill Clinton front and center in this slimey campaign they both run. It's a co-candidacy and would be a co-presidency. I don't want it. I don't want to be defending the Clintons anymore about his zipper, about their Whitewater dealings and ties to corporations like Walmart. Then, certainly not last nor least, trade policy. Those two have ruined whole communities and industries with their give-away-the-store trade policy. NAFTA has brought a terrible result. Ross Perot was right! Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush.. for God's sake not another rerun of Dynasty!!

Yeah.. there are differences a whole sackful!! And Obama has a much better shot at beating McCain, AP-IPSOS and Time polls say so this week.

Because if he's the Republican nominee and the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton then he's probably got my vote. And I'm sure I'm not alone."

While I support Obama's candidacy as well, assuming Hillary pulls off what is looking like the increasingly difficult task of securing the Democratic nomination, I'm hoping that maybe these idiotic "my way or the highway" suicide voters on the left will be cancelled out by the disgruntled conservatives who hate McCain and have pledged to vote against him no matter what, and we can still eke out a victory.

If someone considers themselves to be a progressive and votes for John McCain, that is asinine stupidity in the worst degree, and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise.

This is the same guy that suggested (jokingly?) that poll taxes and beatings to keep people from voting were good things!

Okay, here's a couple of older polls that say half or more won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances. I'm looking for the one I was referring to. Most recently her disapproval ratings have been 47% or higher but I am searching for the specific poll I saw that asserted they wouldn't vote for her at that number.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

Released: October 20, 2007

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

http://www.mcleancountypundit.com/2007/06/29/more-than-half-of-americans-wont-vote-for-clinton-poll-shows/ More than half of Americans won’t vote for Clinton, poll shows Survey provides a snapshot of the senator’s challenges as she seeks the Democratic nomination for president By William Douglas MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU Contra Costa Times Article Launched:

WASHINGTON ­ More than half of Americans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Ne

Referring to the above -mentioned polls- One of the themes of this primary season has been the "Hillary hate" factor. And so polling organizations have periodically polled voters who are hard core and won't consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances. Seems like there has been some variability but it's always been high, from mid to high forties or as much as 50% or more. For whatever reason HRC has been a polarizing figure and seems to unite Repub voters. I think this is one reason why Obama consistently comes out better in match-ups with McCain or other Republicans, especially as he is better known. This doesn't mean HRC couldn't win, but her margins to bring about any victory are going to be very thin indeed.

I haven't seen much data to suggest the "why" of this phenomenon, but in my own circle of friends and associates, male and female, there do appear to be those who like Hillary and those who can't stand her political persona, sometimes with reasons based on her actions, sometimes without. Until recently I had at least been reasonably accepting of her being the nominee even if she were not my first choice. Her vote on the Iran resolution probably confirmed my worst suspicions. As the primary season has advanced I have come to have a deep distrust and loss of respect for both of the Clintons, this from someone who was an enthused volunteer in the '92 campaign, met Bill Clinton, and went to the inauguration. I defended Bill through all his zipper problems and prevarication later on, worked hard to save his rear end when he was being impeached. I had driven in his motorcade when he came to Portland in the primary (a young and yet undiscovered Gwen Ifill was one of my passengers). But I'm quite sad at what's become of the Clintons, and believe their time has passed. I applauded HRC when she went to the Senate but I now believe she and Bill are bad for the party and bad for the country at the national level. I think Hillary should go back to representing NY and Bill should go back to charity work and spend some more time on inner reflection,maybe pal around with the GHW Bush show and take it on the road again.

More evidence of the weakness of HRC with Independent swing voters, compared to Obama. These are two of the lastest from Gallup and Rassmussen. They mirror what the Time poll said this week- Obama by 7 over McCain, McCain and Clinton tie.

From TPM Election Central

*
  Pres '08
  Feb 12 Rasmussen
  McCain (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 44%
*
  Pres '08
  Feb 12 Rasmussen
  Obama (D) 44%, McCain (R) 40%
*
  Pres '08
  Feb 12 Gallup
  McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 48%
*
  Pres '08
  Feb 12 Gallup
  Obama (D) 50%, McCain (R) 46%