Since there was a "Conservatives Love Obama" theme around here ever since Jerome's infamous diary, let's clear somee things up, shall we? Wall Street hates Barack Obama. Most Republican hawks hate Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to the War On Terrah, Wall Street seemingly believes Obama is Adlai Stevenson soft mixed with Malcolm X's loathed identity politics.
"even as he continues to worship at his militantly Afrocentric church in Chicago... If Obama hopes to win the White House, he'll have to do better than that to convince a majority of Americans he's a pro-America" [emphasis mine]
Or just look at this cartoon.
Or the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Obama exudes the charisma, authenticity and optimism that many Democrats find lacking in Mrs. Clinton. Yet while he was raised in Hawaii by his white mother and grandparents from Kansas, his public identity is defined by the African skin and Muslim name inherited from his late father, Barack Hussein Obama, of Kenya. Inevitably Democrats ask: Would Americans elect an African-American, and one whose name rhymes with the terrorist they most revile?
Classy.
Then there's this theme, which is really common in the east coast GOP-leaning publications. Barack Obama may not be proposing Hillarycare, they argue, but he's an economic idiot and he'll raise taxes. The difference between Wall Street's reaction to John Edwards and Barack Obama is that they just assume Obama's a dolt at economics, whereas they already know what to expect from Edwards because of 2004. They'll hate either. Just in the ballpark of strategic value, it would be better to still be low on the radar still, but the attacks are inevitable regardless of the candidate. (No one needs to be "vetted".)
Now, some conservative writers have written positive or neutral things about Obama, as long as the subject isn't healthcare or size of government (while they ridiculously give a cliche condemnation but pass on their own candidates) or such.
Disaffected conservative Andrew Sullivan--who voted Kerry in 2004--speaks glowing of Obama, but not because he likes Obama's political stands. He likes the idea of Obama after the corruption of what he sees as true conservatism, while his party wanders in the wilderness. The idea of a candidate, what they represent mythically, emotionally and as part of a story in the hearts and minds of the American citizens, the way Nixon or John F. Kennedy represent ideas to the American people, however exagerated from reality.
If you are confused, get your heads around that. A very small minority of conservatives like Obama's politics on any major issue.
They like his lack of corruption.
His Horatio Alger story, (conservatives love the American dream)
His ability to be bipartisan (not to accomplish a conservative agenda but rather to not be petty and rub wingers' face in it)
When it comes down to the the wire, they hate his stances, they'll still vote for I Heart Huckacreationsim or Old Lord McCain or 9iullani or who have you. They simply see him in a way similar to the idea of Reagan--affable, universal, optimistic, change-bringing, and as the Wall Street Journal above said, his charisma. These are not people who recognize facts in the appropriate ordering and so you may come away with the impression that they're fans of Obama and especially against Edwards or Hillary because of issues.
Among those white evangelicals in the GOP base who are nutty-neurotic about Muslisms, they still will hate Obama. Among hedge fund Republicans, they still will hate Obama. Rush Limbaugh already explicitly hates black people, so he already hated Obama.
And guess what? Obama already knows about all of this and is already outmaneuvering it. Just like Edwards did. Just like Clinton has. They'll all be challenged by the GOP in such a way, they all can overcome it in these terms alone.
Hillary Clinton may be appreciated by Senate Republicans in their rare moments of sanity for her adept handling of foreign policy, but Republicans don't love her foreign policy. She's a hawk and that's better than Obama for some, but they'll still do everything possible to trash her next year.
As for pissing conservatives off being a good thing, well... Being that I'm quite farther left than many of you, I'm farther from the GOP on many issues and don't give a shit about their causes, but neither do I don't live to piss them off. That's closest to what the party tried in 2004 when it failed miserably with its inability to get outside of "anything not Bush". Negative campaigning is lame, and that was about the one thing conservatives accurately had pegged on the Democratic Party in 2004. We opted out with a candidate so "safe" he later wouldn't contest voter fraud and voter theft, and then quickly tried to tack progressive John Edwards on to the ticket to try and salvage our own party's base. I'm on John Kerry's email subscription and I went through all the hope, worry and heartache you all did in 2004, so that's besides the point.
Let's keep focused on our message being positive, that is, tangibly improving people's lives. Providing health care. Making mortgage payments easier. Bringing home people from Iraq. That's what's going to win in Iowa in two weeks, right? Not "not them".
As for who loves Obama outside the DP, that would seem to be Independents as evidenced by the latest story in New Hampshire. If Obama wins Iowa, they'll probably vote Dem to help out Obama and if not possibly go with McCain in the GOP.
On the other hand, John Edwards has won over the progressive blogosphere and would be influential in getting out the base. (And Clinton does really well among party women, African-Americans, et al.)
So each has a really strong strategic value, bringing in Independents or bringing out the base. Not to the exclusion of each other. They each can overlap, but each has a stronger suit. I'm not going to entertain "which one is better?" becuase that's going off into irrelevence. As for conservatives, there may be candidates they hate more than the other, but that has no bearing on the candidate's progressivism.