Informal Democrat Poll

Well I can only speak for myself and others in my family....but I'm white and from Alabama, and voted for Barrack in the primaries, and should he get the democratic nomination, he'll receive my vote once again.

Isn't it just as racist to assume that the majority of those in a group of Anti-Obama white Democrats take their stance on a basis of race?

Also, I've been Pro-Obama since the Don Imus instance.

Absolutely.

Ignorance.

White guy here in Williamson county, where my kind account for about 85% of the population. At our convention last month, the delegates broke overwhelmingly (~87%) for Barack Obama. Just south of me in Travis county (~70% whiteys), the split in his favor was about 68%.

Your assertion of racial bias here is both unfounded and wholly inappropriate. I'm quite offended that you lump me in the same category as some ignorant-ass high-school peckerwood from South Carolina. He no more speaks for me than Magic Johnson does for you.

No it's not

They have no support for their anti-Obama issues.

Is he campaigning negatively? no
Is he hurting the Democratic party? no
Does he share similar policies as Hillary? yes

So why be anti-Obama unless you Rep,racist,or just stupid?

Ridiculous. In 2000 the same number of Republicans said they wouldn't vote for Bush if McCain lost the nomination. Bullshit.

I don't see how someone could vote for Obama in the primary and not vote for Hillary in the general. Or vice versa. They are practically the same on most the issues, and that is starkly different from what McCain has to offer. And the "experience" argument against Obama is total bullshit. Let's see:

Abraham Lincoln: One term (2 years) member of U.S. House of Representatives. Accomplished nothing notable but "just a speech" against the Mexican-American war. He went on to preserve the Union from the biggest internal threat ever faced in this country.

Theodore Roosevelt: Served as governor for only two years and Vice President for less than one.

George Washington: Great military general, but had zero experience in leading a government. He somehow managed.

Woodrow Wilson: Served as governor of New Jersey for only two years. No foreign policy credentials, but got us through World War I.

Lyndon Johnson: Had tons of experience and legislative accomplishments. He then managed to escalate our presence in the biggest foreign policy nightmare of our country's history.

I think it's funny that three of the four presidents who made it to Mount Rushmore somehow had less national experience than Obama does. The idea that all of this experience is necessary is a myth. The best presidents were the best because of intelligence and judgment. Hell, Hillary doesn't even have that much experience. She hasn't done that much in the Senate, and while I can give her some credit for her time as first lady, it still doesn't touch McCain's record. But I'm not voting on experience, as history has shown that it doesn't really prove anything. I vote on issues, and both Democrats are too close on the issues to let a divisive campaign keep me from voting for either of them in the general election.

I voted for Obama in the primaries, and as much as I'd love to see him be president, I'd vote for Hillary over McCain without blinking an eye in the general.

In regards to the experience argument, I've said it before but it's worth repeating:
If people cared about experience as much as they claim, Gravel would have gotten the nomination already.

Damn, Hazel, you beat me to it.

It's only natural for the closed-minded to offer such a limited scope of possibilities, so I don't exactly blame you for your shortcoming. After all, it's your nature.

They have similar views on what needs to be done but not on how to do it. Last I checked, Obama isn't talking about obliterating Iran if they lash out against Israel. Granted, I don't support the idea of it either, but that's just one particular instance. The anti-Obama Democrats either don't like his approach to things or they find him to be a bit shady.

Personally, I'm an anti-Hillary Democrat (atleast this time around). Am I sexist? No, I just don't like Hillary. She's inconsistent in her campaigning, mudslinging within her own party, focused more on image than issues, and frankly I think she's batshit crazy. One day she's accusing Obama of being inexperienced and boasting of 35 years of experience (total bullshit), the next she's accusing him of being elitist. She goes straight from attacking him to acting like she's being victimized. She accuses him of being unworthy and unprepared to lead, despite the fact that he's shown more signs of preparation than she but that's beside the point. Then she turns around and suggests he concedes and signs on as her running mate, when he's winning. I'd like to see where Obama is acting the same way, because if he is, I guess that means I'm sexist.

On the opposite end, you've got anti-Obama Democrats who think he's untrustworthy because of his long past with that nutjob pastor and his Muslim extremist father. Personally, I think both of those are bullshit, but there are those who are able to validate that way of thinking and have other reasons not to like him.

That all being said though, I'd probably still pull for Hillary if she got the nod. She is still a better choice than McCain.... I think.

Obama and Clinton are far from being essentially the same candidate, even if they were both the same race and gender. Unfortunately, you only see these readily obvious anomalous traits and assume that that is all that sets them apart.

McCain. Obama too Liberal for me.

So you'd rather vote for someone with good character who has pledged to keep us in Iraq, make no changes on economic policy, and nominate conservative judges over someone who already sees eye to eye with you on most issues but just doesn't exemplify good character? Doesn't add up to me, sorry.

I'd hate to study history and see that FDR was never elected because he was too polarizing and showed bad character. Because he was accused of both.

Obama isn't anymore "liberal" than Clinton. Clinton isn't any more "liberal" than Obama. If either of them were really all that "liberal", Nader wouldn't be running against them. The "too liberal" argument is a right wing talking point that is as much empty rhetoric as anything.

If you're already voting Republican and think that Obama is too liberal, fine. Makes sense. But if you're pro-Hillary it really doesn't mean anything. They are both left-of-center.

It's true,I am closeminded..lol my wife says it quite often

but Rev Wright is no nutjob.He's a pastor and is suppose to give his congregation 'HIS TRUTH'. He's not obligated to show the greatness of America.

Just like Obama was right about 'Bitter' rural America. Why wouldn't they be? It's like you can't fault America. People want change but doesn't want to discuss the bad that needs changing.

I'm anti-Hillary as well. She's had her dirty hands in the White House since the Reagan days. She's nothing but a goback. She's very Bush-like.

Just that people don't think there's a better candidate out of Obama and McCain..which I find very interesting