Where did you get your information? Obama does not have a massive lead in all the remaining states. Clinton is the one with the massive lead in Kentucky and West Virginia.

I think the idea that John McCain is a war monger has no basis in fact.  Of the candidates McCain is the only one who has seen the cost of war and the only one who has a child in the armed services (the Marine Corps).  Senator Clinton voted to allow and initally supported the "preemptive" Iraq war.  She stated that if Iran attacked Israel she would attack Iran.  In many ways, she has been the biggest hawk of the three candidates.

As for taxes McCain will keep the Bush tax cuts, but anyone who has reviewed his record will acknowledge that he also supports cutting Government, something that Bush's "compassionate" conservative movement has not done -- they've done the opposite. McCain, unlike Clinton, is not a "pork" farmer. 

I have no problem attacking McCain because of positions he has taken or because you disagree with his political ideology, but to say a McCain administration would be a "third" Bush administration is unfair rhetoric without a sustainable factual basis. 

Clinton is the one with the massive lead...

We come back to this phrase again and again -- massive lead.  What defines a massive lead in states that are not winner take all?  I would really like to see these numbers that are in contrast to EVERYTHING I've been hearing about Hillary's campaign.  She needs to beat Obama SOUNDLY... somewhere.  So far, that hasn't happened, especially in the "big" states.

IF current polls do not change, all Obama needs to do is garner 34% of the remaining superdelegates to get over 2,024.

Currently in NC, Obama is well ahead of Clinton by 15.5%, with about 13% undecided.  In IN, he's ahead by 3%, and he was down almost 7% a week ago, with about 10% undecided.  If those percentages hold up, he'll gain (approx.) 21 more delegates than Clinton (104 to 83). So much for her big win in PA.....

So after NC & IN vote (I'm assuming Guam spilts the 4 delegates), and not including any more SDs declaring their allegience, the delegate total will then be (again, approx.) 1827 for Obama and 1675 for Clinton.

She is the lesser of 3 evils with McCain being in the middle of the pac (and I don't literally mean evil).  Obama is so extremely liberal.  I don't want someone that liberal in the White House any more than I want an extreme right wing conservative in there.  Clinton and McCain are more moderate with Clinton leaning left and McCain leaning right.

***

I'm surprised you think Senator Obama is so much more liberal than Senator Clinton.  He's to the left of her on the war in Iraq (and the would-be war in Iran), but to the right of her on virtually every domestic issue.  Which isn't to suggest there's a huge difference between the two -- they have pretty similar voting records and platforms -- but where they do differ, Senator Obama tends to be to the right (again, with the exception of hawkishness on foreign policy).

McCain was the one singing (literally) "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb
Iran" and he's been quoted as saying, "I hate to tell you this but we WILL
BE in other wars."

We have the biggest deficit of all time and yet you seem blase about
Mccain keeping the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. The
money is NOT "trickling down" as Reagan theorized (and what Bush Sr.
called "Voodoo economics.")

McCain has confessed that he knows little about economics. Why is this a
candidate that excites anybody? Small government excites you? Why? We ARE the government! The government is supposed to be for the people-- the constitution starts with the words, "We the people." The whole point of the government is to have people helping each other--and let's not forget--it employs people! People that are there to serve you. You will gain nothing from McCain presidency. Why would you vote against your own self-interests?

Erik -- I don't know where to begin. Did you even read what I wrote?  I took issue with your statements because they are baseless rhetoric, particularly because you put forth the lie that a McCain administration would be a third Bush administration.  This editorial by David Brooks of the New York Times, can address that allegation better and more eloquently than I can:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28brooks.html

I also direct you to this editoral from Mr. Brooks regarding Seantor McCain's record: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26brooks.html

As to your most recent missive I respond accordingly:  I said you have no evidence that McCain will start a war with Iran.  I countered by offering you an example of what Senator Clinton said about the conditions where she said she would got to war with Iran.  Your counter is that Senator McCain admitted that there would be more wars?  You don't believe there will be anymore wars if Obama or Clinton are elected?  Is that what you are saying?  

My larger point to you though was that if you want to criticize a candidate for what they said or because you don't agree with them ideologically thats fine, I may agree, I may not.  If you have an ideological difference -- e.g. big government vs. small government, thats fine too.  I have no issues with that.  I just happen to think both ideologies are valid and have their place.  But reasonable minds differ.  Where I differ with your post is your position that government is "people helping people."   I find such a definition patently absurd and totally unsupportable by the United States Constitution.  Morever, it makes you look like a pollyana (which I don't believe you are). 

I tend to think of Government (as an entity) as being a mechanism for regulating business and commerce, supporting and enforcing the law and responsible for the allocation of resources and funding.   And those allocations are intended to be for the societal good, including welfare and defense.  Of course those allocations are also frequently abused and money is wasted often for the benefits of politicians' careers rather than the social good.  Smaller federal government (ideologically speaking) is intended to limit Federal services and leave such services to the states or municipality.  If you don't buy that ideology, again thats fine.  But its a valid view of government, and necessary for reasonable balance.

Turning to my "blase" attitude regarding the tax cuts and the deficit, again I think your position is based on incomplete facts.  The deficit exists because the books are off balance.  Where the balance is off kilter is when the taxes are cut and federal services (or costs) are increased.  The Bush administration has been a nightmare -- you'll get no argument from me there.  But to paint McCain with that brush is unfair and factually off.  He opposed the tax cuts because there was no corresponding cut in expenses.  He supports them now for the same reason Senator Clinton won't roll them back right away -- because with a consumer based economony consumers need money and increasing their tax burden will not spur the economy.  As for Senator McCain's "admission" about his financial wherewithal he was being honest.  None of the candidates are economists.  None of them have the "financial" experience to be president.  Who he would "hire" for the job as "financial advisor/guru" is a fair question, just as its a fair question to Senators Obama and Clinton. 

Tax cuts help all citizens as it more money in their pockets.  Each candidate has promised tax cuts of some kind.  The question is at what salary level do the taxes attach and what type of tax is being raised/lowered.  If you want to affect certain taxes such as the capital gains tax fine -- but be cautious as that can affect middle class loans or withdrawls against 401Ks, an asset many people have that they use for purposes other than retirement.  It also can affect lending practices and the value people get from selling their homes.  By the same token estate taxes affect people from all classes (except the very poor) because often the deceadancts assets (when aggregated) exceed a million dollars and are subject to taxation.  I am sure you agree that a millionaire in 2008 is not as wealthy as a millionaire in 1988.  Unfortunately the "points of attachment" for taxes do not account for where someone lives and the cost of living in that place.  So when considering tax increases, one may think they are helping the middle class, but the definition of middle class may need readjusting and the increase does not help but further hurts.  

Brian, we had the same thing in California in the early 80 when former LA Mayor Tom Bradley ran for Governor - he was projected, based on polls, to win, and instead, lost to George Deukmejian - and exit polls indicated that, in fact, Californains said they'd vote for a black guy, but in the privacy of the voting booth...

Brian, we had the same thing in California in the early 80 when former LA Mayor Tom Bradley ran for Governor - he was projected, based on polls, to win, and instead, lost to George Deukmejian - and exit polls indicated that, in fact, Californains said they'd vote for a black guy, but in the privacy of the voting booth...

Which is my fear about Obama.  I think he's kicked ass in the caucases because everyone sees you there -- but in the annoymous voting booth old prejudices can shine through. I'm not saying that anyone that votes against Obama is prejudiced -- but I think some that do may be.