How is it that anyone who thinks Hillary would be better than Obama can maintain that Obama would be better than McCain?

From what I gather, they think that IN THE LONG TERM Obama would be better for the U.S. than McCain because Obama would be such a disaster that everyone would suddenly "wake up" and realize that Big Government, Nanny State Politicians suck and everyone would vote for small government, non-POS politicians.

I personally think it wouldn't work. Or at least if it does work it will wind up being such a long, drawn out, expensive proposition that it's not worth the cost.

Right now I'll take even minor improvements over "burn it down and start all over again" projects.

I don't know how many of the evil-weighers are being rational about it, but for those who are, the idea would be more like this:

With any of these three as President, the government becomes more unlike the thing we want it to be; with McCain, it becomes so, though perhaps marginally less so, with less opposition, or with the wrong opposition, leading to a long-term decline in the possibility of the right opposition - or, perhaps, any opposition - having any effect on how the government evolves.

Likely so. I'm not sure anyone involved actually thinks it, though.

I do, but I also don't care.

I will only support a candidate who is within some distance of my views, but I try to keep that distance large enough that I don't succumb to the perfect/good trap. Unfortunately, this year this means I cannot support the Democrat, the Republican, or even the Libertarian. Barr did way too much harm as a Congressman for me to support him now, even with his public change of some of his views. I have seen what he does with power.

I think I'd rather vote for anyone awful as long as I continue to have a right to speak out against them. McCain has been pivotal in already curbing that right with the McCain-Feingold bill. That Obama might do the same thing doesn't discount that McCain actually DID it.

Viguerie et al. (the guy spams my mailbox): be careful what you wish for. A snObama presidency might make you wax nostalgic about BJ Clinton for Heaven's sake.

You're never going to agree 100% with any given candidate. I, for one, don't like the fact that McCain buys into AGW alarmism, or his softness (ahem) on immigration.

I think other people here have basically got it right. McCain will not rehabilitate the Republican "brand," and if he does, it won't be in a way that conservatives and libertarians like. Look for four years of slow-motion surrender to the Democrats. McCain won't change direction; he'll just pull back on the throttle a bit. Furthermore, President McCain means Democrat gains in 2010 and almost certainly a Democrat president in 2012, possibly Hillary Clinton.

Negative votes are entirely respectable, Mr. Viguerie to the contrary. They may, in fact, account for a lot of the stability of the American system.

Others prefer to project fantasies of what future elections will be like if we do A or B. Not only do we not know this with certainty, we don't have any ability to predict further on. It's just a story that some might find plausible.

Lastly, there is always the high probability of any number of crises over the four years.

I have to agree with you. That is why I rank them Hillary > McCain > Obama.

Well, you may be running into the Voting Paradox. It's perfectly possible for a group to have circular preferences even if no individual within that group does.

I am going to say that your comments is thought provoking. Politicans will always play the mind game to get the voters. In my opinion, McCain is too old to be a president. He might end up with Alzahimers right after his put in office. As for as Hilary and Obama, I could careless what they are who they are as long as they stand behind their words and help every hard working Americans not bull*hit about stuff they can't handle.