If the R's thought Obama was so easy to beat, Rush would be telling his followers to vote for him in the primaries to mess things up. He's not.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence out there (and some more than anecdotal) that plenty of Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama when the game started taking off.

My Republican boss voted for Obama in the primaries, he's an actual supporter. Another Republican I know "crossed" over and voted for Hillary. He's a real supporter of hers, go figure, after years of bitching about the evil Clintons, Bush made him rethink a thing or two.

I really don't think that this is really as big an issue as people make it out to be. In the early states, things were still tight for the Repubs, and many of the R base wanted to vote AGAINST McCain, they would have had to throw their vote away to try at trickery.

Even with the mud being thrown, I think Hillary or Obama could win by showing that McCain is just the Bush status quo and run his 100 years in Iraq statment over and over.

It's about keeping the dem. primary process going as long as possible so that both candidates are bloodied and it won't matter who the nominee is.

How's it working?

I don't want to give credit where none is due.

Obama and Hillary are both strong candidates who want to be the next President and the result of this is a serious fight. I personally don't like all the attacks, but I don't want Rush to take credit for either candidates eventual nomination. Millions of committed Dems are voting in record turnouts, a few yahoos shouldn't be able to sway things too much.

If either Dem candidate eventually wins the general against McCain, Rush will claim it's because enough people didn't follow his advice and he was right all along. Besides, he always said McCain was a weak candidate....

If either candidate loses the general to McCain, Rush will claim it's because his strategy worked and he was right all along.

Screw him and his oversized ego.

I am mocking his followers who act as if he cannot stand a continuing, rigorous campaign.

Last point, continuous, rigourous campaign I understand. BS attacks I don't, no matter who is doing it.

I hated that the Swift Boat Veterans passed off their filth against Kerry and did what little I could to counter it, poll walked, etc.

I try to counter all the RW crap that I get emailed from my family and coworkers about the Clinton murders (BTW, one of the people they list as a murder victim was a good friend of mine and it infuriates me to see him used this way) etc. Many of my friends call and ask me if things are true, to "fact check", like did Al Gore really tell Ollie North that Obama wasn't a worry and other huge fallacies. I get asked to rebut tons of crap.

So, when Clinton praises McCain as capable, Obama as not, and goes as far as to say Obama wasn't a professor when the college he taught at said he was, it doesn't pass the smell test. She can say she's more experienced, but she has to prove it. That's fair on both counts, the other shit, not so much.

p.s. regarding trolls, AKA has been around forever, not a troll, whether you agree with her or not. I don't know KateTex, but she seems to just be a bit overzealous in some of the threads, but not here. There are a couple posters that I'm not convinced about.

Didn't we do this with Bill Clinton already? How did that work out for you?

Actually, a damn sight better than it's worked with Bush.

At least with Clinton, when he did something that even hinted at being unethical, it was investigated, questioned, dissected. When Clinton wanted to get our military involved overseas, the same thing.

We didn't have an imperial presidency then, we're pretty damn close now.

But he isn't a replica of Gonzales, because Mukasey is very intelligent.

That's the scary part. Every time you think that it couldn't be worse, (Ashcroft followed by Gonzales) the Bush White House manages to pull it off.

Who knew that I'd be yearning for Ashcroft, who at least seemed to have a hint of honesty and concern for the Constitution.

I can picture it...and being read by the same ominous type voice that reads the Freedom's Watch ad, not some reasonable, friendly voice, and definitely not a celebrity voice.

It would be interesting to see how it would play. I'm impressed.

okay, you did say menacing voice.... I posted too quickly.

What I'm commenting on is the instant acceptance by the Nation, and the HuffPo, and a large constituency here, of the assumption that because he has a winning personality, that his policies are progressive.

No, many of the hard core progressives wanted Edwards, Kucinich, etc. We didn't get our wish, such is life.

What we instead got (in spite of what the RW wants us to believe with their most liberal Senator crap) is two centrist leaning, moderate Dems.

We had to make a choice and so far, Obama has stepped up to the plate, not because he supports 100% of my positions, no one does that, but because I had to make a choice. Hillary's vote was mine to lose, and she did it.