I'm interested in the safety of this nation and leaders who belive in personal responsibility and not a nanny state.  Social medicine is not a right and just because people choose to work McJobs into their 30s and 40s doesn't mean I should have to pay for them to have medical care.  Social Medicine is the first step in the ultimate spiral to a complete nanny state where everything is provided by the government.  Both Hillary and Obama support this and would do nothing to stop the inflation James believes will destroy the American Dollar.

McCain while not perfect, represent a realistic, middle of the road politician that can unite more americans than alienate them as would certainly be the case under a Clinton presidency and has been under a Bush Presidency.

Obama is very naieve, and while I believe him to be a good person, I see many similarities between him and Jimmy Carter.  For that reason alone, I can not and will not support him.  At least with Hillary, I don't need to worry about stockpiling weapons for the eventual invasion that would result from an Obama presidency.

James do you think about what you write before you post it?  Republicans are going to endorse Obama or Hillary over McCain because McCain "wants to pass out green cards" and stay the course in Iraq.  Maybe you don't watch the debates or read proposed policies, but both Obama and Hillary are for a much more stronger "amnesty" program than the one proposed by McCain.  Neither Hillary or Obama have stated a time that they will guaruntee us out of Iraq.  McCain's 100 year war is so commonly misquoted and used under false pretenses, I almost immediately ignore someone when they raise the point.  His point is that we'll stay in Iraq until the region is secure; Obama and Hillary have said the same.

Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh represent the neo-con sector of the Republican party or far right if you will.  If McCain dominates Super Tuesday, and he will, I can't see how the Coulters can keep saying McCain isnt't being chosen by Republicans.  For once we have a candidate who truly crosses party lines to do what's best for America, and people are attacking him because he doesn't blindly stick to an ideology.  If it's "The Economy Stupid"  why would you want to put people in office who will raise taxes and implement more social programs, the biggest ever being social medicine, and plunder more of our money?  All of the European nations are embrassing free market programs.  France and England have seen dramatic increases in their GDP over the past 10 years which is attributed to their free-market policies that were implemented at that time.  China is growing because of its free market principles.  You can't be a world's super power and provide every luxury of life to people. 

It amazes me that the same people who were screaming Freedom Fries and for the head of every Arab in 2001-2003 are now backtracking at the exspense of others.  They chose not to serve and dodge bullets for their cause, but now that they think their pocket book may be crimped, they're willing to gamble with national security.  As soon as we get attacked again, the same tempermental people will scream for the military to go back into the fire.  When they get bored again, they'll change their mind as easily as they originaly made their decision and expect everyone else to hup to.

Personally I have no respect for politicians or "leaders" who don't wear the uniform and take a stand for what they supposedly believe in.  Anyone can flip burgers, manage a store or sit at home and pop out kids.  That takes no effort and is a life entirely dedicated to one's self.  Clinton, Obama, Romney and Huckabee are nothing but life long oppurtunist like 99% of Americans who do nothing but what is in their best interest.  This is fine of course, because this is what those who make sacrifices for America want everyone else to do, but I'll be damned if some average, mercenary, self involved civilians are going to claim they have a clue what selfless service and dedication mean. 

/endrant

Last time I checked, Hillary had a huge lead in New York and double digits in California.  While I can see her lead dropping in California slightly, Obama stands no chance of winning New York and I doubt he'll be able to take California.  An endorsement from the Post means nothing; the post is a conservative paper.  The New York Times endorsed Clinton and McCain.  Romney attacked McCain on this because The Times is the "liberal" paper.  How convienient that people are neglecting to mention the Time's endorsement of Clinton - quite a feat considering it's the largest paper in America.  I'm interested in who the LA Times has endorsed?  I honestly don't know, thus why I'm asking, but I bet they endorse Clinton.

Edit:

Look here for the California Polls:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … y-259.html

James mentioned the one poll where Obama closed the gap, objective observers should notice every other poll where she leads him by 10 points or more.  Currently she leads him by 11 points.

I think this will be a major attack against him once he goes head to head against Hillary.  Fortunately, he'll be able to trump her on any national security measures.  It's going to be a tight race, no doubt, but Democrats are more scared of McCain than any other Republican candidate.

We shall see.