What about the 'defectors?'

What to make of the “defections” of a number of high-profile conservatives, who now claim they intend to vote for Obama? In the first place, anyone who willingly votes for an unambiguous socialist (perhaps that’s too mild a word) cannot, by definition be a conservative. As Michael Medved pointed out in a recent column, an Obama presidency will lead to fundamental changes in our society, changes that will be almost impossible to undo. And the changes are not the kind that will warm the heart of a conservative (to say the least). So if you're voting for Obama, you're not a conservative. Period.

Many of the so-called defectors have cited their deep misgivings about Sarah Palin as the proximate cause of their decision to support Obama.

While I'm not giddily enthusiastic about Sarah Palin - I do think her experience is on the thin side (but not as thin by any means as Obama's) - I think she's been extremely ill-used by our supposedly free and objective media. The left over the past decade has become pathologically vicious (perhaps you've seen examples of it). While seemingly oblivious to their own rage, they project that rage and venom onto all conservatives - accusing McCain and Palin, for example, of running a hate-filled, vile and negative campaign. In fact, the McCain campaign has been maddeningly benign. As I say, it's sheer projection, but with the media transparently in their corner, they're allowed to project away. By the way, here’s what Wikipedia says about projection:

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection."

I think this fairly accurately describes what we’re seeing played out every single day. Of course, projection has been a leftist trait since at least the ascendancy of the Clintons. (Recall how Clinton would talk - still talks - about the right-wing hate machine and the politics of personal destruction? Of course, no one was more the master of that black art than Bill and Hillary – until the Obama operatives came along.

What we're seeing with this rabid leftist hate-mongering and the accompanying brown shirt-type tactics (I'm convinced) is the beginning of a new era in America politics and society, one in which free expression is going to be sharply curtailed.

Anyhow: what about Buckley, Powell et al?
I think the smartest analysis of the entire campaign is that it basically represents the establishment figures vs. the anti-establishment.

Ironically, for all their conceits of being "progressive" (an offensive term, is it not, as used by leftists?), it is the democrats who represent the establishment in this era, just as Republicans represented the establishment two generations and more ago. As much as they like to hold desperately to their 1960s wild-in-the-streets grotesquely romanticized self-image, the left is actually blandly mainstream and backward-looking these days. They are, frankly, the real "conservatives," if that means clasping old and tired ideas to their chests and refusing to let go.
The left's idea of new ideas is to recycle worn-out socialist concepts that were shown decades ago to be fundamentally flawed. The east coast Brahmins -who used to embody the very epitome of Republicanism - are now solidly left-leaning. And aren’t their schools basically left-wing training camps?
The fact is, authentic countercultural figures such as Palin and McCain rather embarrass establishment types. They just aren’t the right kind of people. (And note that this has nothing to do with race.) They didn't go to the right schools (Christopher Buckley ludicrously and cheerfully noted that Obama is a "Harvard Man" as a qualification for the presidency. Buckley also cited - with exclamation points strongly implied - that Obama writes his own books! If that's a qualifying factor, let's elect Clive Cussler - he's written lots of books! Buckley’s father once famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the new York City phone book than the Harvard faculty.)
The McCains and Palins in this country – and there are lots of them –aren't glib and smooth and polished; they don't get invited to the right parties; they don’t exchange emails with starlets or pal around with romantic “revolutionaries.” And so on. As banal as this sounds, in many cases, the support for Obama comes down to just this.
Buckley, Noonan, Brooks, Powell and the other so-called "conservatives" who have ostensibly jumped ship to back Obama really are very much establishment figures (they have always been more establishment than conservative) and with this election they are finding their own comfort level. They could, just barely, stomach Bush – he was an Ivy Leaguer, after all, but was something of an embarrassment himself, shrugging off as he did his Blueblood background and embracing his inner Texan.
The fact is, the “defectors” just feel better being aligned with an administration made up of a "Harvard Man" and his Ivy League cabinet. (Obama may have a rainbow cabinet but it'll be the least "diverse" cabinet in history when it comes to what really counts: how do you think about issues. His cabinet, frankly, will be a Politburo pure and simple.)