Many Republicans Have Not Voted For Obama In The Primary

To insure a McCain win. They don't care if McCain wins. They just want Hillary out. Those are bogus votes for Obama. Tens of thousands of them.

I acknowledge you seem to enjoy the bomb-throwing role, such as when you dismissed the voting of entire states:

We Acknowledge Obama's Strength Mickey mouse states that hold caucuses instead of votes.

But do you have any data or analysis backing up your assertion? Some nerdly deconstruction of exit polls perhaps? I believe over 18 million people have voted in the democratic primary so far. 10,000 or so "rogue" voters doesn't seem significant to me.

Meanwhile, quite a few letter writers on Salon have mentioned that Republican friends or family are pro-Obama.

To me, this whole notion of politics as the red team vs blue team is the easiest way for the few to lead around the many like sheep.

I'm certainly willing to think that a 'segment' of Obama delagates are comprised of Republicans that are either pro-Obama or Anyone But Hillary (ABH). But the question remains, how large are those segments? It's potentially an interesting story for those with time and access to research the Internets. Given what I've seen of exit polls, I don't think the ABH cross-over crowd significant. If you have different numbers, please share them.

I also think that you are downplaying the Huckabee phenom. Lot's of potential Republican ABH voters are otherwise engaged. The Huckster is trying to force a brokered convention. The polls are tight in Texas.

The Evangelicals are tired of their life as political serfs and are in revolt against the party leaders. Having smoked the establishment candidate, Romney, they are looking to take down McCain. I wish Salon and the rest of the media took a deeper look at the Huckabee and his supporters.

Hillary Clinton’s mastery of the issues and her ability to communicate what the important issues are ...

Up until last summer, I would have unquestionly agreed with you about her mastery. Hillary does appear to be the most Wonky of the candidates. However,

• The most transcendent ideas are this campaign season todate have been change and political reconciliation and they were introduced by Obama, not Hillary. All other candidates have been forced to deal with it, including ill fated Mitt Romney in his final flip flop as the change candidate.

• Hillary was late to the anti-Iraq war position.

• Hillary missed the FISA vote,though that's currently not a mainstream dem concern

• Neither Hillary or Obama are addressing the US Govt addiction to foreign debt, or the US dollar crisis. Very much underreported outside of the financial community.

• Hillary does get credit for at least attempting Healthcare reform once (mastery of ideas not equal to mastery of implementation)

Based on that, I would say that in the Battle of ideas, she's been a lot more reactive than proactive.

I would feel comfortable with a savvy and battle-tested Senator from New York

Unfortunately, I'm starting to question her savvyness and battle-testedness as well, based upon her actual campaign performance.

This is only her second campaign in the driver's seat. She started off with over 15 years of name brand recognition, huge poll margins, big buy-in from the party establishment, fond memories, and has raised over 100 million dollars. She's now in a do or die situation. Then we find out

• that she never planned past February: the "Shock and Awe" of Super Tuesday was supposed to be the end game: it'll be" all "over by February 5. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23209237/page/5/). There was no plan 'B'.

• that she had to scramble for funds and loan her campaign $5M

• that she hired based on loyalty over competence. See Patti-Solis Doyle.

This all reminds me more of Rumsfield and W than a master of battle. Basic errors have been made, starting with never underestimate your oppenent.

Finally there's the underlying assumption that all the left-over crap from the anti-Clinton movement of the 1990s has an expiration date and now has to be thrown away. I doubt it.

Hillary may be a fighter, but I'm not sure she is a winner. If she pulls off a big comeback, then I'll be happy to stand corrected.

Prior letter threads here have covered at length who has (not) voted for FISA and at what point. For me, neither candidate has exactly hit a home run on this issue. I'm confounded, but not suprised that this issue can't get traction.

Obama not voting for FISA doesn't make it OK for Hillary not to vote on it. In my view, she doesn't get credit for thought leadership on this point. Sorry.

My post was entirely about the nuts and bolts of the Hillary effort, not about how I think Obama is a better candidate, so I'm not sure how it qualifies as propaganda. If you're saying that a candidate has a mastery of ideas and is battle tested, then you should expect a critique from someone, somewhere. I think my concerns are legitmate ones based upon the facts as I see them. I prefer to drink my Kool-Aid with a reality twist.

Why not save your ire for those who want to remake the Constitution in the image of their God?