So, if I read you right, based on your answer there was no substantive difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that caused you to support her and oppose him, is that accurate?

No.  That was my initial thought.  It wasn't until I read his Blueprint for Change where I started to consider him too much in favor of too big a government.

Now it's that he doesn't share a bed with Bill Clinton?!?!

************

Now, Al...put "Bill Clinton" and "sharing a bed" in the same sentence and you're just asking for trouble!

Oh that Al is such a scamp.

In an interview, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

Don't confuse supporting Civil Unions as opposing gay marriage, per se.  To gather how someone feels about the issue you must look at the entireity of their position on gay rights in general.  Here is a link to a PDF on Obama's stand on gay rights issues.  In the PDF Obama supports the repeal of DOMA (signed into law by President Bill Clinton) -- meaning that a gay marriage in California or Massachusetts would more than likey have to be recognized in any state in the Union.  How is that being opposed to gay marriage? 

Here is a quote (from his website) regarding gay rights in general:

"As I have said before, I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all — a promise that certainly extends to the LGBT community. I do envision a time when we all enjoy that promise, but we have to work hard to get there. LGBT Americans deserve real change, and they deserve it now. Certainly as a nation we can all agree that discrimination has no place in our America.  Same-sex couples face legal discrimination every day — that we can, and must, end — by repealing DOMA, providing federal rights and responsibilities to same-sex families, and supporting LGBT parents, to start. And we need to remember that it’s not just couples that need protection — we need to pass long overdue legislation that ends employment discrimination, enhances hate crimes protections, and repeals “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Tell me where there is any agreement on the issues of gay rights (including marriage) between Senator Obama, Senator McCain and Governor Palin.  Your argument is pretty thin there Scott.

I've often thought the same of hard-working taxpayers who vote Democratic: Why would they align themselves with a party that thinks of you as an ATM to fund others who won't work as hard? But I have many friends who both work hard and vote Democratic and, hey, that's their right as Americans. They are just as entitled to their opinions - and their vote - as I am to mine.

**************

Has any Democrat ever said I was an abomination? You know because I pay taxes. Do I really need to trot the numerous quotes from Republicans against gays. It's one thing to align yourself with someone who may or may not raise taxes. But for Christ's sake the Republican party goes on and on about gay marriage and gay people in general as if they're gonna destroy Earth as we know it. Not even close to the same thing.

No.  That was my initial thought.  It wasn't until I read his Blueprint for Change where I started to consider him too much in favor of too big a government.

Then what is the substantive difference upon which you rely?  How do his proposed programs differ substantively from Senator Clinton's?

Just for the record my initial question wasn't directed at Scott. He had already stated where he stood. It was directed at the others on here who have supported McCain/Palin. I just wanted to know where they stood and why they think these two are any different from Bush.

I simply replied to Scott because of his smarmy reply to me. Makes no difference if Palin is running for President or not she's too close for comfort.