Apparently being a Clinton supporter means that talk is cheap but wishing really, really hard will carry the day everytime.

Apparently you were asleep all through the 90's when they won against the Republicans twice even with nonstop smears from the press, a dozen or so phoney investigations about manufactured scandals, an "Independent" Prosecutor cherry-picked by Former Senator JESSE HELMS and LAUNCH FAIRCLOTH, and 24x7 badgering from both the MSM and the nut right airwaves.

American remembers the Clinton Administration and the 90's and would have gladly voted for a rerun of it if the left along with the help of their GOP allies hadn't (yet again) snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

We're done now.

Both McCain and Rove are washed-up has-beens now, but in the past, Rove was unbeatable.

Wrong on both counts.

1. Rove has been involved in this election up to his neck. Anyone who thinks he is limiting his involvement to an occasional editorial is delusional. He's an instrumental engineer behind pushing the Obamateur to the frontlines. The loss of the Congress in 2006 would be enough to really energize Rove into restoring his name for anyone who knows his ego at all.

2. McCain was the most viable candidate the Repubs had. IE, the only one who could win in the west where they were on a steady losing streak. The only one who didn't alienate himself from the ever and ever more critical hispanic vote.

In otherwords they had the sense to put their strong candidate forth early while meddling to make sure the Dems did the opposite. They're a formidable opponent; strategists to the bone. And don't kid yourself as to anything less.

Not true.

First we don't need ALL of it. As Bush showed with the black vote in 2004 where he got about 10% of it, that's all he needed to carry the election.

Dems don't need ALL of the evangelical vote; they only need some of it. At least 40% of it is moderate. Please understand not all evangelicals are the same stripe anyway, particularly as new more moderate leaders replace the old crusty ones.

@"orbit boy"

I repeat: any objective look at the Obamateur's legislative history shows him caving in to big interests and doing much of nothing to change the lives of the people who had "HOPE" in him. Since he made not a dent of difference in the lives or problems of his constituents in a much smaller, far easier role (either because he didn't have the right stuff, or because as I suspect he simply wasn't interested in it) it's not just a ridiculous leap of logic to think he can tackle the critical problems the nation is facing all over, but rather a full pole vault jump into a blind leap of faith.

Pardon me for being old-fashioned, but after the past 8 years I don't go much for blind leaps of faith anymore. I believe the best indicator of someone's ability to make a difference and keep their promises is to look at their past history.

For that reason:

Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008.

"Uncle Fester"/snoman/Delores, et al

re: We really have a difference of opinion here. I think McCain was the only candidate left standing.

Don't be silly. McCain sailed by from New Hampshire on; wasn't even a tough race. He had it locked up near from the beginning. Because the GOP knew he was their only chance against the presumed Democratic candidate, HRC,who is popular with hispanics, older voters and even working class whites. The latter two of which are critical to win a Gen Election.

(Note: Clinton was near synonymous with God in the black community too until Obama started his race-baiting in SC).

The GOP knew their evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. They knew they needed to make some rehold in the west (they'd been losing it steadily) and if they lost the hispanic vote by putting forth some anti-immigration loud-mouthed that they were done for good.

That's the difference between the right and the left. The right makes a mistake once, learns and never does it again.

The left never learns and in many ways can be thought of as turkey's standing out in the rain with their mouths open. As case in point, for Godsake's there's still even people over there thinking Nader is genuine.

It's hard to say how much of the holy-roller vote Huckabee will draw

Near none. Texans are practical people and they understand that McCain has the election sewn up.

Rather the Republicans are going to vote in the Democratic primary quite deliberately for Obama. This isn't just my opinion; articles about this with quotes from Republicans have been reported and published in major Texas newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle.

However, obviously the Obamateur's are going to avoid dealing in reality until they are forced to (aka November 6th).

re: It's a fair question to ask if his tactics will be effective with the changing mood of the electorate

What changing mood? This is your blind leap of faith again.

Americans are concerned about the same things they've always been concerned about: their kids being safe, the economy, education and healthcare if you're older. None of that has changed a bit.

Since you like polls so much last week's polls showed that Americans trusted John McCain over the Obamateur by 10 full points and that they ALSO trusted him by 10 full points to run the economy over the Obamateur.

Whereas they trusted HRC 10 full points over John McCain to run the economy.

Unless you're suicidal you'd take that as a pretty strong wake up call.