You still didn't answer the question. From your earlier post on another thread you were supporting one of the Republicans, but then you state on this thread that Hillary was in front of McCain in your ranking.

You evidently pored over past Salon posts of mine in search of God-only-knows what. Here is the quote you posted before where I said I didn't support McCain.

I have a choice between two candidates: John McCain and Fred Smith. We know about McCain. Smith's position is that voices in his head beamed from Alpha Centauri ordered him to stop the War so that's what he's compelled to do. If I don't support either of them, am I morally responsible for the war dead after McCain is elected?

See where, in the last sentence, it says "don't support?" I assumed you made a silly mistake so I was kind enough to let it drop. You can thank me later.

You still didn't answer the question. From your earlier post on another thread you were supporting one of the Republicans, but then you state on this thread that Hillary was in front of McCain in your ranking.

When did this ranking come to formulation? So, in all honesty, if Hillary would win the nomination in a way that would deem "fair" in your summation, you would support her?

MUST READ ARTICLE - REZKO TRIAL THAT STARTED ON MARCH 3, 2008.

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

Sorry, Sen. Obama, eight isn't enough

--March 7, 2008 by Steven Huntley, Chicago Sun-Times

--THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/830209,CST-EDT-hunt07.article

AMERICA deserves the truth about the relationship between REZKO and OBAMA -- especailly if he has ties to indicted fund-raiser.

THANK YOU ------ MEDIA for providing daily up-dates on the REZKO trial that stated on March 3, 2008.

AMERICA DESERVES THE TRUTH!!

The circular firing squad the Democrats always have at the ready is up and loading. It was perhaps inevitable that it would get ugly between Obama and Clinton, but the Democrats are once again doing what they do best: losing an election.

Clinton will do anything to win the nomination (so she can lost the general), and the more negative and ugly the primary battle gets the more ammunition McCain has down the road.

While Obama has the lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote, his lead is no landslide, and if the Democratic nominee gets the nod by hook, crook, and circumstance without more than a thin majority we will repeat Chicago, 1968. And that was truly ugly.

When will they ever learn.

I've been looking at print media because of the interest I've felt in this election. After a year of this, it's become glaringly obvious to me, that print media must be owned and operated by the same right-wing elitist Clinton-haters that can be found throughout TV and Radio.

There are about 49 anti Hillary/Bill Clinton stories and TV items, for every 1 item supporting the Clintons. At first I got angry at this astonishing bias, but now it's clear that most people that fall for this BS are hopelessly gullible and believe all the tripe they're fed by these media sources, believing that the Clintons are devils and criminals. News media people, most of whom are nothing but a bunch of venal, deceitful, and cowardly creeps and liars, are not as pathetic as the suckers that fall for the vile mind-manure fed them, by these media slobs.

Am I the ONLY one who bothered to click on the link 'whitecat' posted some pages back? It contains clear and abundant evidence that Obama has been attacking Clinton from every angle, going on three years now. Dates, sources, content, it's all there.

OKAY, HERE'S THE LINK AGAIN - CAN'T MISS IT THIS TIME:

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

You can spin yourself any which way you can about your candidate if it makes you feel good aout your choice.

With Clintons is something new everyday, the garbage disposal part of her kitchen sink analogy. My god, how can you ignore her platitudes now on John McCain? Do you ask yourself the question if she is indeed a Democrat? And if she is not the Democrat to win the nomination, better a Republican friend?

She is now NOT at all qualified to be Democrat, much less the President.

For someone promoting a message of being a uniter, I've always found it ironic that Obama's rhetoric has effectively divided the Democratic electorate by saying he's the only one for change, while she is the status quo (hello! Hillary is a woman and a progressive, not the status quo!).

Obama supporters have level nefarious and republican-style mis characterizations of Hillary, and have willfully believed and perpetuated republican talking points about Hillary. Obama himself perpetuates that image that she is "too divisive".

I agree. Resisting the release of the tax returns is arrogant and raises important questions. And why are the voters in the Mississippi primary not entitled to the information that other voters will receive after April 15? Hillary's televised explanation for her foot-dragging - that she has been "too busy" -- is woefully inadequate. So, too - as you pointed out - is her resistance to releasing her Clinton library papers. Hillary had no high security clearance during her husband's administration. She sat in on no high-level meetings, and is mainly associated with the failed, closed-door (she was secretive, even then) health care debacle and the Whitewater papers. Yet if we, the exhausted Democratic voters, are going to be subjected ad nauseum to her mantra that she has "35 years of experience," and that only Hillary, that savvy, tough foreign policy expert, can save our sleeping children, then she should turn over her papers so we can judge for ourselves.

Worse, her most recent campaign strategy - to offer unabashed praise for McCain while trying to eviscerate Obama - is particularly wearing. And it's creating a toxic atmosphere where just a few short months ago, there was collegiality and optimism.

(Wake me in November)

Here's what Mr. Jones really thinks from a previous post. So when did you start to root for Hillary or Barack over McCain?

When you decided that picking a candidate for president was equivalent to rooting for your favorite team, you made yourself irrelevant. Pretty much whatever Hillary does won't stop her "fans" from voting for her. It's the independent voters (unless you are Karl Rove) like me who get to decide in November. So the problem for you and your ilk now is: regardless of whether you label us as "Republicans" or "full of crap", how are you going to get us to vote Clinton in the end? Jumping the queue by strong arming the Democratic party makes her less desirable to us. In terms you can more easily understand, sure you might win the playoffs against Obama but at the cost of the championship.