Of course the conservatives are praising the Clintons. After years of doing war and trying to convince Bill and Hillary there way is right, HRC has now, finally, resorted to Republican tactics.

Also since she seems to almost completely endorse the right-wing neo-conservative foreign policy agenda (right down to attacking Iran) how else would the right-wing feel other than victorious?

And then, finally, there's the added bonus of continuing Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos (dragging the Democratic primary out as long as they can.)

They know what everyone else has seemed to have forgotten, the longer a primary goes the better it is for the opposition party (in this case the Republicans.) And as for a brokered convention-- forget it, whoever has one of those has lost. They're counting correctly on the fact the media and the Democratic Party are simply unable to look back at history(1968, 1972,1 980, etc., etc.) and realize what they're doing to their own party.

Add in the fact African Americans and young people on one side and women on the other are at each other's throats and this is a Republican dream come true.

Anyone who believes Bill Kristol is simply championing the underdog I've got some land in a swamp down in Florida to sell you.

And it's clear what that is in this case. An increasingly ugly, disasterous Democratic Party weakening either candidate in the fall and moving us one step closer to having another Republican in the White House.

If your sworn enemies start rooting for you, you really need to ask why.

Yeah Kristol's right on this just like he was on Iraq. (Errr.) Or on cutting taxes for the rich. (Ooops.) Or on attacking Iran. (Well hey at least he and Hillary are in agreement there.)

Hillary Clinton really doesn't want Lincoln-Douglas style debates. All it's going to do is remind everyone she is clearly the Stephen Douglas in that equation to Barack Obama's Lincoln.

In the 1856 debates Lincoln was accused of using too high of rhetoric, of being only speeches, of his "house divided" speech not making any sense and not being a platform, of drawing too much educated support (from other lawyers) and young person's response, of being unable to win "working class whites" in Southern Illinois and the South, of being elitist, of giving too high-minded of addresses, and of attempting to find a middle path on race while the majority of the electorate believed he was too friendly to the African-American point of view. Also his relationship with his domineering, authoritarian father who was often distant was constantly called into question.

Remind you of any one else? Barack Obama. Both Illinois lawyers, both clearly Christian but with confusing precise religious views in the eyes of the electorate, both served one term in the Congress, both viewed the Constitution and the restoring of it as paramount.

His opponent (Stephen Douglas) was viewed as the more policy-driven of the two, he enjoyed wide-support from the "common or working class man or woman" as a result of his opponents more reasoned stance on race. Douglas himself, much like HRC, rarely engaged the race debate directly but let his surrogates and supporters charge his opponent, Lincoln, of somehow being something other than Christian and too pro-black. When questioned himself about it he remained strangely oblique, much like Hillary, relying on statements that Lincoln's neighbors claimed he was a good man, so Douglas assumed it to be true. (Remind anyone of "He's not a Muslim as far as I know.")

Hillary Clinton REALLY doesn't want to press this comparison. Cause if I were Barack Obama I'd take her up on it. And I'd make her have one at the Springfield state house, one where Bobby Kennedy made his amazing speech on the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Indianapolis, one in a rural, poor town in North Carolina where blacks and whites still live apart, and one on the mall at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. This is not a comparison HRC wants to press.