Of the three remaining candidates, the one who reminds me most of of Bush is not John McCain, but Hillary Clinton. She not only stole Karl Rove's playbook for the primary, but, in using charts that he created, all but had him as an unofficial campaign advisor.

But beyond the Rovian/Clintonian (not that there is a difference anymore) campaigning, there is another area where Clinton is indisputably similar to the current White House occupant. Both share an equal disregard for fact and an equal ability to stir the populace with blatant lies.

How many people here were told to "take off the tin-foil hat" or called a "conspiracy theorist" or called stupid by brainwashed Bush supporters when you pointed out that Iraq had no WMDs, that al Qaeda was not working with Iraq, or that the Bush motivations for invasion had more to do with oil than terrorism? How many of you tried to explain to people you always assumed to be fairly intelligent that there was no jutification in the invasion of Iraq , only to have them respond with some version of "3000 dead people in New York don't matter?" The specifics may be different for you, but I am sure I am not alone in trying to argue with someone for whom cold hard facts were not convincing.

Trying to deal with the most ardent Hillary supporters, whom I like to call the Flying Monkeys™, gives me the exact same feeling that I had in the lead up to and the early days of the Iraq war. Some Clinton supporters who are otherwise intelligent, reasonable people just keep spouting the same Clinton talking points without regard for their truth. When confronted with cold, hard facts they figuratively stick their fingers in their ears and chant talking points to drown out the logic.

Fact: The DNC did not take any votes away Saturday. Those elections were not valid when they were held. The DNC added votes, which aided Clinton.

Fact: Voting for McCain because the DNC punished the two states with half votes is hypocritical. The RNC cut the delegations from those two states in half, netting the same punishment.

Fact: There is no official popular vote tally. Many of the caucus states do not keep totals of how many people participated, so an accurate count is not possible.

Fact: You cannot claim that Clinton is beating Obama in the popular vote if you have to count Michigan. You can't beat someone who was not a participant.

That Michigan can't be counted to claim a victory over Obama is a cold, hard fact. Counting Florida is dubious at best, since Obama performs much better when he campaigns in a state (which is why Clinton wanted him prepping for their 20th + debate instead of campaigning). Counting Puerto Rico may be legitimate, but not when the popular vote is being used as an argument that Clinton would be stronger in November. PR cannot vote in November, so their vote is totally irrelevant to her electability argument.

By distorting the facts to make her arguments and using the Bush tactic of repeating lies until people start to accept them as facts, Hillary has proven herself morally unfit to be president and little different from Bush. She should be ashamed, but so should the Flying Monkeys™ who have a duty as citizens to be as informed as possible when voting. Mercifully, this should all be over in 3 or 4 days. The only questions are whether Hillary Clinton can do enough to save her career and whether she has the moral fortitude to REALLY work to convince those that she brainwashed to support Obama in November.

I find it difficult to believe that feminists would be willing to see Roe v Wade overturned by McCain appointees just to punish Obama for beating Hillary. However, some of the comments that I have seen from her backers suggest such a distance from reality that some of them might. Hillary has an obligation to drop her ego and try to undo the damage that she has done. Two more days of her fact-bashing won't kill us, but once Obama crosses the finish line, Hillary needs to get to work.