Just because Drudge and/or Limbaugh don't "really" want Clinton to win the general election doesn't mean that they don't want her to win the Dem primary. I'm also not suggesting that Limbaugh was "in" on this stuff ... but I think Drudge's post /may/ have originated from the Clinton camp to create a stir that is most critical to HRC getting a primary win right now: sympathetic support from female voters and those who want to see a female president. It's true my theory doesn't have "proof" ... but I site this:

- Articles (plural) have emerged about Drudge's and Clinton's unlikely cabal. I posted one, the Times is another.

- It strikes me as fairly clear that modern politics include PR spin that is most akin to "reverse psychology" ... for example Edwards' campaign manager early in the primary season insisting that Rove was most afraid of Edwards as the Dem candidate and explaining that this was the reason Rove was speaking so directly about Clinton. The Edwards person stated that this is a standard Rove trick to rally people to her cause and to marginalize Edwards. It's distraction PR. Chomsky writes of similar things In Manufactured Consent. Polling data shows that Clinton fares the /worst/ against Repub candidates ... on the whole. The spin that she is most electable is bullshit. The vitriol people have towards the Clintons might be unfair, but Rove & other smart Repub planners probably see her ticket as the /only/ chance they have to get the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

- As Rebecca accurately points out, the Clintons are not above using "concerned trolling" for their political purposes. I don't believe that Bill Shaheen operated without any input from their people. There is no "proof" of this, but isn't this a possibility?

- And, the debate moment where Hillary made her "mistake" and began her slide in the polls resulted ... the next day ... in Bill saying "those boys were a little tough on her." or whatever the quote was. The Clintons initiated the gender issue for their purposes ... and a defense against a poll slide. Isn't it possible they are doing this again?

None of this is to suggest that Limbaugh's statements weren't sexist. They were. But, there /may/ be other factors at play. Don't you think that sending out a message that both (1) fans the flame of anti-Hillary sentiment, and (2) helps her win the primary would be in both Drudge's and Limbaugh's interest? This article would be more interesting if it explored these possibilities.

I grant you there is some interpretation of events needed here … but using the word “conspiracy” to describe this possibility is marginalizing. I’m not saying Bush knew about 9/11 or that the gov’t is dissecting aliens in Nevada.

I agree with your post. This is not your main point, but it is a supporting argument, and one I don't see holds weight from your words:

Both Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign are the recipients of enormous amounts of cash from our nation's largest corporate interests which control much of what happens in Congress.

I don't believe this is true of Obama ... and connecting him to Clinton is this regard is at minimum a stretch, and more likely untrue.

The link you use to support this argument clearly states:

This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Obama states he is not taking money from PACs. So, these must be from individual contributors ... and I presume they are liberals who ALSO make money and contribute accordingly.

Please explain this seemingly wild conclusion.

You're right ... but I'm not arguing that Obama is absent of corporate influence ... but to say that his and Clinton's money raising ... and resulting "debt" to establishment organizations is the same ... is wrong, I think. Oprah is a billionaire who runs a massive media empire. It's possible she is supporting Obama because she wants some tax breaks or she wants him to outlaw all other talk shows ... but doesn't it seem more likely that she is telling the truth about her support of him: that she believes he can best lead this country, for all citizens. She seems to be a populist in that regard, right?

Thanks for the info ... as I wrote to Joe Klein's Conscience ... I'm not arguing that Obanma has no corporate influencers ... but you should retract the false statement that his actions are the same as Clinton's.

Here's better information on Obama's transparency & movement towards government ethics & campaign finance reform. This is an outsider position.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm