McCain. The lesser of two evils. Think of the tagline for the movie Aliens vs. Predator. "No matter who wins. We lose."

Barr. Even though he might not be a true libertarian, when you vote for a party whose principles are as clearly defined as the LP's, you're voting for the principles rather than the person. I've voted for every Libertarian on my ballot since the party existed, and see no reason to stop now.

Blackjack's comment is interesting. I'll bet virtually everyone who votes for McCain sees him as the lesser evil, while most of the Obama voters (not that there will be many on this site) think that he walks on water, then turns it into wine. That being so, I don't see how Obama can possibly lose.

Just read the debate transcripts, five hours to go, I'm stumped.

McCain, even though he has no chance of winning my state. I'm hoping that enough other people will finally see what Obama truly represents and change their minds too.

It's a defensive vote, since I've never liked McCain. But as I said elsewhere, a vote for a no-chance third-party candidate is effectively a vote for the ultimate winner.

That and the fact that there is no intellectually supportable case to be made for Barack Obama.

McCain. America's safety against terrorists and others who wish our obliteration is paramount. I am also prolife, and against socialistic spreading the wealth. I have hopes McCain will do much less socialism once he's elected than he's mentioned in the campaign. I think he knows he needs the "gimme" votes.

Whether he does or not, the first 2 reasons are enough for me. I also like the guy's character. I don't like Obama's. The people he has chosen to associate with his entire life speak volumes about him, and none of it is good.

I voted this morning. McCain. As I was walking into the school (keep in mind I had on these really cute flat black suede shoes with a peace sign on the tops, and a purple scarf with peace signs all over it), a nice man came up to me and said "ooo, I bet I know who you're voting for!" I smiled and said, "I'm an old hippie, not a socialist." and continued on my way. I voted for McCain for pretty much the same reasons Brian stated. I did split my ticket on the state race though. I just don't vote party lines. o.O

Amy,
please explain to me why so many american jews are voting for Obama ??? i live in france and we know what Pro Arab policies mean....

Silver lining: If we must lose this election, we might as well lose it to the most left-wing, ass-tastic, moonbat possible.

In order for the 8-12 year refresher on “why liberal-socialists are bad for America” to have the necessary effect, Americans require stark evidence to help them understand the error of their ways.

And Barack Obama is just the man to do it.

Snoop - we're just now feeling the last effects of the Carter legacy (hello sub-prime debacle!).

Do you really want to give Obama the opportunity to lay more time-bombs in our economy with 30 year long fuses on them?

And Amy - If I needed a reason to vote, burnt coffee wouldn't be it. I don't get the popularity of Starbucks Coffee.

No sir, I don't. But the generation electing Obama doesn't remember the Carter years.

He's just a nice old guy who builds houses for the homeless.

McCain's too liberal for me, but I'm voting for him because you have to get on the bus that goes closest to your house.

McCain....I live in Chicago and I've see the things that Obama has done (or should I say NOT done). Commuinity organizer my A**.

Obama. I won't going into the whys of it, since I've spent the last two months defending my choice from people who think they can insult me into changing my mind, and I'm done with. At any rate, I don't think Obama is a god among men, but I'm comfortable with my choice. And, even for the people who voted for McCain (or other), it's great that you actually got out there and voted.

Darth Nader...if you really want change, do it big time.

Aint tellin'. Spent two hours at the local high school, waiting in line. It didn't feel that long, though. The atmosphere was kind of light and chummy, and since the only votes in our district were for president and congress, there were no local candidates doing any last minute stumping. In fact, outside of a few Obama and McCain signs, the only campaigners there were a Democrat and a Republican volunteer passing out sample ballots. It's a nice fall day out here, too, and one of the sports booster clubs was holding a bake sale, so not only did I vote, I got nice hot apple cider on the way out.

Oddly enough, as I was driving to work, my wife called to tell me she was done voting, too. She's spent only a few minutes in line, so I guess the crowd thinned considerably after I left.

I will be voting for Barr. I can't stand either of the "major party" candidates, and I couldn't sleep at night if I caved and voted for one of them. I'm quite sure Obama will win, however, and I will be spending this evening trying to figure out how to hide most of my taxable income. GRRRRRRR.

Obama. I was going to vote for McCain until he picked Palin as his running mate...that woman scares the hell out of me.

One of the biggest reasons I voted, her in California, is so that I could say no on Prop 8 and Prop 4. For all you non-Californians, Prop 8 intends to eliminate gay marriage, and Prop 4 intends to force teenagers to obtain parental consent before receiving an abortion. Since when is this kind of givernment interference okay? I mean, personally, I'm in a straight marriage and don't intend to ever have an abortion, but why does anybody get to tell someone else what to do? I could go on and on, but I haven't had coffee yet.

Uh..."here" in California. And "government" interference. Jeez. What'd I say about coffee??

Sarah: "givernment

A government that promises to give you everything you want?

"Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser evil?"

I'm in California, so my presidential vote means little or nothing. That race has been decided here.

Nonetheless, I've decided to pull the lever for McCain. My reasoning:
- The fiscal-conservative / social-moderates in the Republican Party need to be encouraged. The evangelists have WAY too much power in the party.
- The hardcore leftists in the Demcratic Party need a good smack-down.
- Even if Obama runs the table in the electoral college, ensuring McCain is close in the popular vote means Obama and the Dems can't legitimately claim a "mandate."

I will never vote for an economic liberal, so naturally, I could not vote for McCain. As I said before, a party who sacrifices economic principles for political gain deserves neither. The only time the republicans have moved back to thier limited governing roots is when a strong third party (Perot, ahem) has sucked thier fiscal conservatives away. Look at the GOP circa '96. I think we'll see the same thing in 2010, hopefully.

Bush has been completely disastrous for us over the last 7 years (though I do find a few redeeming things about some stuff he's done), but overall, by continuing his policy under a new name isn't changing the product, it's merely replacing the sign outside.

HOWEVER! I was happy to vote Republican in all the other races in Indiana, particularly Mitch Daniels who I think has done a fantastic job for the state. Of course, voting in one of the most conservative counties in the country means that there were hardly any democrats challenging the seats (or cared to, for that matter).

At least the weather here was nice enough to ride the motorcycle to the polling place.

But since this state is as blue as my bike, it's highly unlikely that my vote did any good.

Not if the majority feel the way you do, Brian. I've been talking to a LOT of people who are voting the same as you and I did. o.O

Conan, do tell me how voting for McCain will encourage the GOP to move back to the right? I mean, he picked Palin for the simple fact that the Evangelical vote was necessary for him to win. Voting for McCain/Palin on perpetuates the idea that this needs to be continued, no?

Farker - it won't. The Republican Party cannot be saved.

But an Obama victory will certainly get the Republicans to move further to the left.

All we can do is apply a tourniquet and hope to stave off the bleeding while we build a new party.

Obama, for four reasons:

1. Like Sarah, I'm terrified of Palin, and I think having her that close to the presidency is an unacceptable risk.

2. McCain appears to be delusional about her -- every time I've seen him with her, or talking about her, his face seems to be obscured by a fog of happy, unqualified, infatuated approval. This does not speak well for his judgment.

3. Both candidates are clearly willing to sacrifice their principles for the win, but I think McCain's campaign has stooped lower.

4. Principled or not, Obama is at least highly intelligent. And since I'm not hysterical enough to believe that he is evil personified, or that he's plotting against the best interests of this country, I think that that will count for something.

First of all, I never said McCain was my ideal candidate. The reason I don't like McCain stems from his habit of passing laws that have disastrous unforeseen consequences (McCain-Feingold) just to show how maverick (do a shot) he can be. Being a maverick (do a shot) doesn't have to mean passing laws on a whim without regard for the consequences.

Why a vote McCain moves the party fiscally to the right: McCain has (except for his increasingly desperate campaign) been in favor of reining in government spending and limiting government reach.

Why a vote for McCain moves the party socially to the middle: McCain is not an evangelical (despite needing their support to win as a Republican). He has, in fact, insulted evangelicals in the past. As for Palin, while being quite religious personally, she did not govern Alaska from the pulpit. Being popular with evangelicals and being a theorcrat are two different things.

Encouraging the non-religious-zealot fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party will mean that in the future a Republican candidate need not kowtow to the religious right to win broad party support.

The other choice is that the few remaining sane Democrats and Republicans go out and form a legitimate third party.

GODWIN ALERT!

Obama is at least highly intelligent.

So was Adolph Hitler.

Fat lot of good that did the Germans.

Although I'm not certain Obama's intelligent at all, whomever is pulling his strings is.

McCain. I would personally like to vote for a third party candidate but this state is still too close to call. I believe a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama unfortunately.

I'm not a fan of Obama, haven't been for some time. Don't like that he wants to give people something for nothing. And I'm saying this as a person who stands to benefit from his economic plan.

Another reason to deny Obama a mandate is the empowerment that the leftist radicals will feel if he gets an significant share share of the popular vote.

Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, et al will crawl out from under their rocks to intensify the culture wars upon Obama's coronation.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barbara Lee, et al will start lining up to enact high tariffs, socialized medicine, more and higher taxes, and other leftist dream programs. The people that got us into this economic mess will be the ones in charge of the economy.

The coyotes are licking their chops at the prospect of being put in charge of the henhouse. Barney Frank has already said there are plenty of rich people to tax to pay for increased social spending.

It will take us fifty years to undo the damage these folks will do in just four years.

Conan, will that be tacked on concurrently or consecutively to the clearcut damage Bush has done to our economy, our Constitution, our rights, our leverage, ad infinitum....

TOL: ...I'm not hysterical enough to believe that he is evil personified, or that he's plotting against the best interests of this country....

Not saying Obama is or will become a despot, but no despot who dragged his country down to ruin ever thought he was plotting against the best interests of his country. In fact, most thought they were acting in a way that would make their country (and the world) a better place.

Hitler thought he was saving Germany from communism. Napoleon thought he was saving France from chaos. Stalin, while under no illusions that he wasn't simply trying to grab power, thought he was doing what would be good for his country. Same with Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Pinochet, Franco, et al.

None of them thought they were evil. Nor did their followers.

How many of Obama's followers are voting for him because he will "save" America from itself?

Sarah, do you have kids? Ever known any teens? do you honestly think they should be allowed to do something surgical that can, in fact, have drastic consequences on their health and future reproductivity (abortion complications are much more common than birth ones) without a parent's ok? They can't go in and get a boob job without you, why should they be able to end a life? I've yet to hear a decent argument for that. I'm all sorts of impressed california, of all places, has that ballot even on the measure.

Oh, and the government telling my kid she can have an abortion IS the government interfering in my life, and my rights as a parent.

OK, you asked. I voted for McCain/Palin. Why? I only need one reason. Human life. As long as we can cavalierly commit genocide on the most helpless humans, just for convenience, then no other issue matters, at all. Only the Republican candidates stand against the murder of the unborn. And if you wish to rant that it's not murder, just stop. Every single one of you knows better. It's legalized murder, and it demeans our society because it places more value on convenience than on human life.

Obama/Biden, waited in line for two hours to do it. Only needed two minutes with the ballot, as it was Obama/Biden and then straight "No"s on all the propositions. :)

Conan, will that be tacked on concurrently or consecutively to the clearcut damage Bush has done to our economy, our Constitution, our rights, our leverage, ad infinitum....

Bush had a lot of help from Congress, both on his side of the aisle and across the aisle.

The resolution to use troops against Iraq passed with widespread bipartisan support. And everyone in Congre had the same briefing Bush did to read but chose not to read it. But when things went south, suddenly "Bush Lied." Hillary Clinton even admitted she didn't read the intelligence briefing when she voted to authorize the use of troops against Saddam Hussein. Every country in the world though Hussein had chemical and biological weapons.

The economy was damaged by both sides of the aisle: changing the CRA got bipartisan support in '97 both sides applied pressure for the past ten years on Fannie and Freddie to buy "liar loans," and on banks to make them. Too much of the liquidity in the economy was tied up in housing related ventures (MBOs, bad loans, etc.). When the housing market hiccuped....

What damage to the Constitution and our rights? We still have our rights to speak, worship, bear arms, assemble, etc. freely. No stormtroopers have shown up arresting anti-Bush or anti-Cheney protestors, columnists, or agitators. The New York Times and the Village Voice are still being published and distributed freely. Your anti-Bush comments here are not being recorded by secret government operatives who will show up at your house tonight and "disappear" you.

Unlike Ayers and Dohrn, Bush didn't sit around in college and casually discuss the elimination of 25 million people who disagree with him. Or regret that he didn't kill more police and bomb more buildings in his twenties.

Damage from big government programs cannot be easily undone. We're still sorting out the good and the bad from FDR's New Deal and that was passed in the thirties. Johnson's War on Poverty has left us with high welfare rolls, pregnant teenagers in the inner city, and a host of other problems. Don't get me started with the problems stemming from the War on Drugs. And protectionist tarriffs have caused more economic problems in American history than they've solved.

Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold, and other knee-jerk responses to momentary crises further display government's incompetence at dealing with complicated issues. And Obama and company want to expand government's reach.

It's legalized murder, and it demeans our society because it places more value on convenience than on human life.

It's also the single most useless issue to vote on.

Even a court full of Thomases wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. That would require admitting that the Court made a mistake. Because that's really the only avenue they have available to them to set the decision aside.

And the last thing any organization will do is publicly admit fault.

On that note, the only way we're going to get rid of Kelo is to have states craft laws individually that define the specific circumstances under which eminent domain can be applied.

My full list of candidates that I voted for is at my website above. Long story short though, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) was SUPPOSED to be on the ballot here in NY, but once I stepped into the voting booth, his name was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, so I voted for the idiot Barr instead. (Not a huge Baldwin fan, but he was head and shoulders better than anyone else on NY's ballot.) Besides McBama, the only other options besides Barr were pretty much all naked socialists; Green Party, *two* variants of the Socialist Party, and Nader. So yeah, Bob Fucking Barr got my vote. I feel dirty.

By what measure is Chuck "We need to bring the Constitution in line with God's law" Baldwin better than even a garden slug?

I wasn't all that thrilled w/Baldwin, but once again, he was better than any of the other idiots on the ballot. W/the exception of abortion and religion, (at least according to his website here: http://baldwin08.com/IssuesList.cfm)he was a relatively decent candidate, at least compared to the other scumbags.

McCain / Palin

Okay, need to answer the rest of the question.

I prefer divided government, and the Democrats are going to have control of Congress.

I think Obama profoundly misunderstands economics.

Even though I can't fathom some of her beliefs, as governor Palin has been pragmatic and decisive.

Plus what Conan the Grammarian has said.

Amy, as you know I can't vote in your election but here's a gem I heard this morning:

"Barack Obama, if elected, will tax inspiration."

from a caller to the Dennis Miller Show

McCain/Palin. About 2 weeks ago by absentee ballot.

I'm an economist and I live in Germany (and yes, I'm a US citizen). Been there, done that, have a dresser full of t-shirts, and that's why I voted the way I did.

And my 18-year old daughter voted for the first time. My first election was Ford/Carter, I am hoping that history doesn't repeat...

McCain. He is nearly guaranteed to take my state, anyway, so I wish I'd voted Barr instead.

"You have to pinch yourself -- a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising of black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK) 10/14/08

O/B because of all the reasons given by Democrats. Or did growing up in a solid Stevenson home in the middle of i-like-ike land perminently fix my viewpoints?

"It [abortion] places more value on convenience than on human life" -- No, the laws of supply and demand do that.

Barr for me. That's the bus that stops closest to my house, and I would love to see the Libs or any other third party gain enough votes that they don't have to spend all their campaign money collecting signatures. Being stuck with two major parties is part of our problem - why neither Dems or Reps have ever done anything to reduce the size and scope of government.

Funny that the abortion issue should come up again. I agree with Brian, that it's a useless issue to vote upon, but people are passionate about it anyway. What if we had FOUR major parties, two pro-choice and two anti-choice. Then you could pick a party that shared your view, and maybe a few of your other views, too. If you're pro-choice, for example, you're stuck with Democrats, and they don't seem to know jack about economics.

If you're pro-choice, for example, you're stuck with Democrats, and they don't seem to know jack about economics.

You completely missed my point.

Being pro-abortion is irrelevant except to the party faithful.

If you are pro-abortion, but find every other position of Obama abhorrent, then it is illogical to vote for him. Simply, there is no way that McCain/Palin will EVER have an impact on the abortion issue, so you ought not consider it at all.

momof3 said "Sarah, do you have kids? Ever known any teens?"

I hate this question...no, I don't have kids, but that doesn't mean I'm not qualified to say that I think such meddling by the government is unacceptable. However, at 23, I'm young enough to remember clearly what it's like to be a teenager, and I know quite a few teenagers. Still, though, I don't think that should mean anything either way.

momof3: "Do you honestly think they should be allowed to do something surgical that can, in fact, have drastic consequences on their health and future reproductivity (abortion complications are much more common than birth ones) without a parent's ok? They can't go in and get a boob job without you, why should they be able to end a life?"

Here's the thing...lots of teenagers are sexually active. Sexual desire is a biological thing, and nothing we do is going to stop teenagers from having sex. And birth control doesn't always work. If Susie Straight-A's gets knocked up by Joe Quarterback, don't you think that being forced to carry out the pregnancy would carry consequences just as drastic, if not more so, than being allowed to choose an abortion? It's common sense that teenage mothers, likely with little education, money, or resources, don't make the best parents.

Bottom line: if you're able to create that life and decide that it's not a good idea, you should be able to make the choice to end the pregnancy. It's not the teen's parent that will have to live with the consequences, it's the teen...they should be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

"It's not the teen's parent that will have to live with the consequences, it's the teen...they should be allowed to make that decision for themselves."

Sarah, I'm not one for name calling, so I apologize but.....you're being either youthfully short-sighted, very naive, or both. I live in the school district that has the HIGHEST pregnancy rate of the state of Illinois (shockingly, we have more than Chicago, go figure) and I'll tell you that the parents most certainly DO have to live with the consequences of their teen daughter's pregnancy.

Do you think teen mom simply goes out, gets herself an apartment and lives independently ever after? No, she stays home with Mom and Dad, now also known as Grandma and Grandpa. If Grandma doesn't work, she's now paying for and raising her grandchild while her teen struggles to finish school. If Grandma does work, I've seen many of her type quit their jobs to raise the baby so that the teen mom can (again) try to finish school. Teen dad may or may not be in the mix, but teen mom rarely moves in with him and his family. But if she does, there's another set of grandparents dealing with the consequences.

The Illinois Dept on Aging reports there are over 100,000 grandparents raising their grandkids. They don't report how many of those are born to teen moms, but you can probably guess.

Sorry for the non-election related tangent, folks!

Momof3: "do you honestly think they should be allowed to do something surgical that can, in fact, have drastic consequences on their health and future reproductivity (abortion complications are much more common than birth ones) without a parent's ok?"

Do you have stats on that?

"Prop 4 intends to force teenagers to obtain parental consent before receiving an abortion."

Wrong. Very wrong. Prop 4 requires NOTICE only. Not parental consent. I don't care how you feel about abortion or Roe v. Wade, but get your facts right before you vote.

Chuck Baldwin. I don't care how religious the man is; it doesn't matter how pro-life he is. All I care about is getting our forces out of the Middle-East (and everywhere else), now. Unfortunately, Americans will elect a warmonger either way.

Uggh, this presidential election has been like trying to decide whether you wont to stab yourself in the eye with a carrot or a fork.

I voted McCain. It pisses me off but I voted for him. I do not like the crowd that Obama hung around and I do not like his economic policies. I think Biden is the worst kind of pandering asshole. And since I live in a contested state I actually had to vote McCain.

It's cliche, but accurate, to say I voted against Obama.

Big oops and my bad: Just reread the comment on teen abortion consequences and must admit I hadn't read well enough before responding. Sorry, Sarah. However, do you truly think parents aren't subjected to any consequences of their teens having an abortion? That's assuming the teen will go on with life as if nothing ever happened with no changes in their personality or manner. And that the parents, if they are aware of the procedure, can do so as well.

"You completely missed my point.

Being pro-abortion is irrelevant except to the party faithful."

No, I got your point. It's silly to vote based on the abortion issue. My point was just that people do it anyway.

I would love to hear a politican, when questioned, answer that they have no position on the issue and won't discuss it. But that would be a surefire way to make sure nobody voted for them.

I'm voting for (while holding my nose) for McCain. I'm not a fan of his, but frankly, the espoused policies of Mr. Obama scare the living shit out of me.

Card check? Check.

Cap and trade on carbon? Check.

Bankrupt the coal industry creating "skyrocketing" electricity prices? Check.

Talk versus action w.r.t. our enemies? Check.

Abetting the creation of the current mortgage crisis by demanding loans to bad credit risks? Check.

I could go on and on.

Sorry, just can't accede to all of that.

I see a lot of people holding thier noses and saying they voted McCain 'because he's the lesser evil'.

What I'm wondering is, how NARROW does that difference have to get before you decide to vote third party?

momof3: Research done under the supervision of Surgeon General Koop - who was openly and strongly anti-abortion - indicated that women are more likely to suffer lasting health consequences from childbirth than from a properly performed abortion. Now, the difference wasn't vast, but it was there. There are certainly reasons to oppose abortion, and the physical aspect says nothing about the emotional aspect, but research doesn't show that abortions - when done in a sterile environment, etc. etc. - are more harmful to a woman's health and fertility than childbirth. (Though I'm guessing most of the women surveyed had early abortions; I'm thinking that multiple later-term abortions might show a different result. YMMV.)

What I'm wondering is, how NARROW does that difference have to get before you decide to vote third party?
Yes, that's why I did not waste voting on Darth. Cum, feel the power of the dark side third party.

I am Canadian, so I can't vote for a US President. I just want to say that, between the Evangelical-Backed maverick and the Socialist beginner, I think the US voter got poor choices. Let's hope for better candidates for 2012.

I am Canadian, so I can't vote for a US President. I just want to say that, between the Evangelical-Backed maverick and the Socialist beginner, I think the US voter got poor choices. Let's hope for better candidates for 2012.

Amen to that, Toubrouk, amen.

What I'm wondering is, how NARROW does that difference have to get before you decide to vote third party?

Well, given my own political philosophy which is small "l" libertarian, I am simply content to wage a holding action. The American electorate seems bound and determined to vote themselves largess and given that any real fiscal conservative doesn't even get past the primaries, I'm stuck with taking the least objectionable choice. I don't like it, but it's a reality we have to deal with.

What I'm wondering is, how NARROW does that difference have to get before you decide to vote third party?

Depends upon the evil.

If it got to the point where the choice was between two Barack Obamas, I'd go expat.

If it was more like two John McCains, even though it's futile, I'd either vote third party (assuming there was a sane choice) or not vote.

Had this election come down to McCain/Clinton or McCain/Lieberman, I'd have sat it out. All the third party choices presently available belong in padded rooms, not oval offices.

I think the US voter got poor choices. Let's hope for better candidates for 2012.

Unfortunately, Toubrouk, given the treatment that Palin and McCain got from the media, it's unlikely that anyone of even moderate quality is going to run, ever.

If we could get the media to stop slandering the people that run for office, then maybe worthwhile candidates will appear.

Obama. Even though he is too conservative, (he voted for FISA and is against gay marriage) I am voting for him. I was going to go McKinney, even though her "Let's pull out of NATO is a bit extreme", because at the time FISA felt like a dealbreaker. But then McCain picked Sarah Palin. Her extreme religious views frighten me, especially the stories about her hanging out with people who beat up fortune tellers to try and force them to become Christian.

Also, I don't believe that not speaking to people is a good foreign policy. Refusing to speak to someone you dislike is something you should outgrow after kindergarten. In addition, I do believe the adage, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". It is important to be able to keep a closer eye on people. I don't believe in throwing rocks at hornets' nests, they should be carefully removed.

I think Obama's international upbringing is good for America... he represents both sides, being descended from a centuries-old family on one side, and being a first-generation on the other.

Image, while not everything, is something. We've managed to piss off our friends and infuriate our enemies. Obama doesn't even have to do much, the fact that we elected him will restore a lot of goodwill, and make other countries more inclined to help us out. And we do need their help and cooperation.

McCain was going to tax my health benefits. Obama is going to give me a tax cut. Yep, I've got a selfish streak. Of course, whether it happens is another matter... but that is what they SAID they would do. Of course, I don't like that people who don't pay taxes are still getting a tax credit.

I didn't like McCain's energy policy, and I'm pro-choice.

I was pissed off at Obama during the primary debate, because he was asked about the DC gun ban, which I think went to far, but he didn't. There were many other ways he pissed me off as well. Like his fucking propaganda infomercial the other night, which almost made me puke.

So to answer the question above about third party candidates... had McCain chosen a moderate conservative such as Lieberman, Romney, or Guliani, I would have voted McKinney. Sarah Palin was my line.

It's no secret I was for Obama, but we would have been lucky to have McCain, too, you sourpusses. Yeah, I read Matt's book, but I'm not convinced that the urge to service to something greater than oneself is always some 12-stepper flashback, nor do I think preferring Hemingway to Orwell is even a sign of bad taste, let alone the high mast of the Great White Fleet returning from over the horizon, all fliegende Holländer-like. Okay, his concession brought tears to my eyes -- what do you want me to say? It's a strange twist of Fate that I had to walk past the Pacific Design Center going to and from my polling place -- the scene of his 2000 Super Tuesday defeat. That should have been his year. I don't know what happened.

> I don't know what happened.

Well, a nephew says McCain's concession speech was thoughtful and composed... Now that it's over. A central Welch thesis (since echoed by many) was that he really loves being the underdog... Perhaps he loves it too much. (Trying to cancel that debate was just dog-ate-my-homework dumb.) Crises are often enervating. Perhaps his life was such that he needed extra stimulation to maintain interest. (If you can't do pet psychology theories on an advice columnist's blog, where can you?)

And now, a few thoughts copied from an email I just sent the The Blogger Who Will No Longer Be Visiting Amy.

I've hoped people will again reflect on this article by a favorite Canadian. Obama's experience of being black in America is not that of the thousands who wept for him in Chicago tonight (including Jackson, the first Chicagoan for whom I voted for president). Obama doesn't have generations of that ugliness coursing through his veins. Like any Chicago machine politician, he slips into their obsessions as if stretching his arms into a sports coat. His ideas may be pandering and inane, but he was editor of the freaking Harvard Law Review. His mind was refined in some of the central currents of aggressively western thinking.

Anyone who remains concerned about the first black guy in the White House should understand that the sixth one, or the ninth or the twenty-fifth, is not likely to bring that sort of experience to the office. For at least these hours, we all have reason to be heartened by his victory.

Amd Hillary will not be back in the White House. She'll soon be in Teddy Kennedy's chair, a sinecure for an energetic Democratic stalwart. Mr. Barr will not be troubling us further.

Palin will be back. She won't be as cute, as winky, or as otherwise mockable: She'll have done the reading.

The government isn't getting kids to have abortions without telling their parents, momof3. Shitty parenting is doing that. If parents were doing their jobs, their kids wouldn't be getting knocked up accidentally. If they did, they'd be going to mom for help, not running out to get an abortion in secret.

Keep on pointing those kids to abstinence, though. That dead horse could use a few more kicks. What about IT DOESN'T WORK is confusing for people? If they care about their kids, wouldn't they be aiming for education and prevention efforts that are ACTUALLY effective? Geesh. Nearly makes my head explode.

You can't mandate family communication. That, beyond my other objections, is something you would think more people would be behind. Get your nose out of my family and all of that.

My family didn't say shit to me about birth control, but I'm not a dumbass and I figured it out. Sadly, there are a lot of dumbasses out there. Dumbasses who end up raising legions of dumbasses to suck the taxpayer tit. Go on though, keep supporting abstinence only education, restriction on contraceptives and abortion, and keep bitching about them being on welfare. It's been working so far.

McCain reluctantly. While some stated above they voted Obama because they don't like Palin, one reason of many I didn't vote Obama was Biden. Biden to me is the epiotme of old school liberal dem wackadoos thats been in government way too long. He's also a sexist who hates men or at least sells out men to get him votes with the PC crowd. Aka he wrote and got passed the VAWA legislation, which is sexist by its very name.

As for CA's prop 4, notification would be a good thing IMHO. But then, I have a problem with the fact that married women can get an abortion without saying jack sqaut to their husband yet most husbands would have a heck of a time convincing a doctor to perform a vasectomy on them without the wife's written consent.

Sio, you should comment more often. I look forward to disagreeing with you about something.

Also, I said enervating when I meant energizing. It's tough to do this with a 2.6 gpa, people

Christina, why do you very erroneously assume al pro-lifers are abstinence-only? I'm sure as hell not. I have no problem with high schools teaching real sex ed and having condoms available. My very pro-life mom put me on the pill at 14. My 4 year olds already know the mechanics of baby-making, given they've been exposed to my growing belly twice now, they were curious. I am a good parent, and have no doubt my kids will come to me. And you know what else-hold onto your brain here-you don't have to be religious to be pro-life!! Concept freaks you out, I'm sure.

It's always easy to blame the parents. So you know what? When the government wants to take all responsibility and all expense away from me and raises my kids, then they can tell me how to do it. I apologize that I misunderstood the proposition, I was going off the post introducing it, who said without permission. Notification is different. I still am against anyone who is still the legal and financial responsibility of their parents being able to get any surgical procedure without their parents OK. Who's going to pay for any complications? Counseling if they regret it? When the teen is the one who would pay, then the teen can make the decision. And yes, I think that holds true for any medical procedure.

Did it pass?

Sio -

...yet most husbands would have a heck of a time convincing a doctor to perform a vasectomy on them without the wife's written consent.

In what state? While their wives were all for it, none of my sibs who had vasectomies were required by the doctor to get their wives permission. It never was even mentioned. That would be two in Michigan, one in California and a cousin in Pennsylvania.

Momof3 - I made no assumption that all pro-lifers were religious or abstinence only. I made a correlation between pro-lifers and abstinence only, one that you haven't disproved.

Of course it's easy to blame parents. Who else? They are the ones supposed to be parenting. No one's telling you how to parent. They (the majority) are just saying that mandating family communication is not the place of the law, and/or that this prop was dangerous and ineffective. If a teen wants an abortion, the teen will probably find a way to get it, whether that means crossing state lines, back alley abortion or self-injurious attempts. If the goal is to cut down on teen abortion, the focus should be on education/prevention. If the focus is on parents knowing what's going on in their children's lives, I'm not sure what can be done. Laws aren't going to do it.

Who will pay? The state, which already pays for teens whose parents don't pay for their birth control, sti checks and pelvic exams.