What's with the "LOL"? What are we, high schoolers text messaging?

First of all, I didn't say that either candidate had more experience, I said that is a reason to vote for someone, whether it is an argument that will beat McCain is not under discussion.

Secondly, "because she would be better" is a reason to vote for Clinton. Whether it is opinion or based on Clinton's track record doesn't matter, if that is the voter's reason it is her reason. There is no reason why anyone's opinions cannot be reasonable, reasons or opinion based reasoning. What is the blogger's reason for voting for Obama? Does she think he's better than the other candidates? By inductive reasoning she may draw that conclusion where others may draw a different conclusion.

So obviously, more experience and a projection of Clinton as a better president are deductive and inductive reasons for voting for her.

There are no "official Hillary talking points" because her campaign has not issued an "official" list. You cannot "observe" anything in this case, because the extent to which the woman has knowledge of those "talking points" is not known. Because the blogger has qualified the woman's delivery of her reasons as "spewing" which has negative connotations and is pejorative in its nature, it is subjective and not objective, others may have observed different behavior and thought the woman was merely talking and not spewing. Because the blogger has not provided the reader with any evidence of "spewing" it is reasonable to conclude that it is the blogger's opinion.

Candidates' supporters are biased and generally characterize other supporters as incapable of "correct reasoning" or "spewing talking points" not because the other supporters are, but because they disagree with them. Obviously the woman offered the blogger reasons why she supports Clinton, whether those reasons are opinion based or not doesn't make them something other than reasons just because the blogger won't accept them or disagrees with the reasons.