Republicans might want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because they think she'd be easier to beat in the general election. However, that might backfire is she is the nominee and she wins.

Does anyone remember the "FBI files" flap during Bill Clinton's administration? As I recall, someone in the White House was getting FBI files on political opponents, presumably looking for information to use against those opponents. Just imagine what life will be like for Republicans when Hillary gets to use Bush's extensive domestic surveillance powers for her own purposes.

... which means the U.S. is competing with other buyers whose currencies are stronger than the U.S. dollar. Oil just looks expensive to U.S. buyers because the dollar is so weak.

Oil company profits as a fraction of revenue aren't really outrageous compared to other businesses. The absolute dollar amounts just look outrageous because the oil companies are dealing in something that is expensive to buy with dollars.

If you want to blame someone for high oil company profits, try looking in Washington D.C. for the people who set our nation's fiscal policies.

... how she plans to get a new tax on oil companies through a Senate that still has enough Republicans to block it with procedural maneuvers, and signed by a president who would almost certainly veto it.

... I'd be thinking about how much Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" might have artificially inflated Hillary's apparent appeal. I would not want to bet that Republicans who voted for Hillary in the primaries would also vote for her in the general election.

Most Obama voter's have a maxed out credit card a car not paid for and if they have a house they owe more on it than it's worth.

Can you cite a source for this information, or is this just what you figure must be so?

But please please please don't throw me into the briar patch.

I Noticed

That in her appearances today there was no mention of her "Gas Tax"

Maybe she figured out that the stuff she ordered from Wile E. Coyote's ACME catalog doesn't work very well.

McGovern does have experience about how not to lose, and so does the democratic party. But they refuse to learn from it. A 2006 Harris poll indicates the following breakdown of how the American electorate identifies themselves:

conservative -- 37%

moderate------ 37%

liberal---------- 19%

There is a lack general agreement about what these names mean, which makes the numbers also meaningless.

I used to consider myself a conservative. I think government should be small, have limited powers, and exercise fiscal responsibility. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I expected him to uphold these values.

I admit that I made a terrible mistake because Bush has done exactly the opposite of everything I expected. In spite of this, people who still support Bush tend to call themselves "conservative". They clearly mean something quite different than I meant when I called myself "conservative". So what exactly does "conservative" mean?

I also agree with an earlier poster's observation that conservative blowhards have turned "liberal" into a perjorative, so I'd expect fewer people to identify themselves as such.

... the Repub advisors were telling McCain to look at what happened to Hillary and think twice about trying to use the Gas Tax against Obama

I think they said more than that, although perhaps not on the program you watched.

A number of Republicans have become alarmed after they recently lost two supposedly "safe" seats in special elections. Perhaps they are realizing that the old name-calling and silly false "scandal" stuff might not work very well when the party has made such a mess of the country. It's kinda of hard to convince people that things are wonderful when so many of them are hurting.

IMO, there is one thing the Republicans could do that might save their hides this November: Throw Bush and Cheney under the bus.

I mean, what happens if she threatens someone with consequences? They'll be liable to not believe her.

I'm more interested in how well she'll live up to her promises.

Hillary agreed in advance to the Democratic Party's rules about early elections. She signed a paper that said so.

She also explained her failure to remove herself from the Michigan ballot by saying that the election wouldn't matter anyway. This effectively confirmed her signed agreement about the early elections.

Now she has found these statements to be inconvenient and she wants to do the complete opposite of what she agreed to. How many of her campaign promises would suffer a similar fate?

It undermines your credibility.

This is obviously some strange usage of the word "credibility" I wasn't previously aware of.

... there are other primaries to win ...

Perhaps, but Hillary would have to win 90% of the delegates in the remaining primaries just to catch up to Obama. That's a pretty tall order.

You hate her because she A) advocated something which would have helped her politically or B) advocated something which would have reenfranchised primary voters in two states who got shafted because of some dipshit rule?

I don't hate her at all. I disagree with her for reasons that have nothing to do with your false dilemma.

Hillary agreed in advance to the Democratic Party's rules about early primaries. She signed a paper that said so.

When she failed to remove her name from the Michigan ballot, she explained that it wasn't important because the Michigan primary wouldn't count. This acknowledged her earlier agreement with the rules.

Now that things haven't played out the way she expected, she wants to renege on her promise and have the FL and MI delegates seated. My concern is that she will also renege on campaign promises if they later prove to be inconvenient.