Republicans (only think they) Like Obama

This is NOT an Obama smear.  It is an anti-Republican smear.  It was going to be a comment in a recent "Republicans Like Obama, Too" diary, but I just had too much to say.  And its all opinion.  Deal.

Republicans hate Hillary with a passion because their leaders have told them to hate the Clintons for 16 years.  This hate is built upon years of lies, innuendo, scape-goating, cheap shots, misrepresentation, bigotry (Bill was the first "first black President" since Harding), and religious intolerance.

The Republican noise machine has not yet turned its guns on Obama.

They have fired a few warning shots (the madrassa lie, the black separatist church lie, "accidentally" mispronouncing his name), but what has come before will pale in comparison to what will follow when (if?) he wins the nomination.

For now Obama has partial cover: both by the disarray choosing a Republican nominee, and by that ingrained fear of Hillary.  This allows Republicans a temporary window to see Obama as he really is.  And they like him.  For now.  

Their leaders haven’t told them this is wrong yet.

But when they finally choose a nominee, their pundits will no longer be distracted.  When we choose a nominee, they will no longer be playing the "anyone but Hillary" game.  

Then the big guns will come out.  Anyone who listens to talk radio, watches Faux News, watches network news, reads a paper, has an email address, or even breathes will be faced with an avalanche of bile directed at Obama.  It will be the same crap that convinced people to hate Bill and Hillary in the first place, and it will come from the same people.  It's going to be dirty and ugly no matter who we choose, and the right is growing more desperate every year.

I know it won’t work on the left.  Our ideologues who think "anyone is better than (fill in the blank)" have been shown the error of their ways by eight years of Bush.  Some things are worse than the worst Democrat.

I don’t think it will work for the middle.  Fence-sitters who thought that one politician is pretty much just like the next have seen the light after Bush.  Few independents are clamoring for four more years of this.

But I just don’t expect a whole lot of new friends on the right.  

BTW – First-time diary.  Thanks for letting me vent.

•  Wow you know what reps are thinking

  Go ahead Go ahead tell me what I'm thinking now?

  Wait Wait you even know what they think their thinking.....

  Tell me what I will think next then OK.

  by B P Pgh on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:00:51 PM PDT

  •  the diarist did say this was opinion

    ... but I think s/he's right. You gotta know the right-wing smears will come fast and furious.

    by jiml on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM PDT

    •  So let's see ....

      Nominate a candidate that will be shredded in the media day one, because she unites the Republican base?

      Or a candidate that will get shredded in the media only if the Republicans might eventually come back as a cohesive unit?

      Hmmm ... as divided as the Republican party has become, does any one here know of a reason that we should give them a reason to unite?

      My mom is an Obama supporter after 30 years of straight ticket Republican voting. I can tell you for certain if Hillary gets nominated my mother will not vote for her no matter what happens during the election season.

      Don't ask me to rationalize it but that is the way it is.

      an example of just how much the right wing has become divided ... here.

      by DrMicro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM PDT

    •  True and she is entitled to her opinion

      Just some opinions are father afield then others.
      So in my opinion this one is on the coconut tree.

      by B P Pgh on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM PDT

  •  I THINK I know what the reps are thinking

    I'm not claiming clairavoyance.  This is my opinion based on what I have observed in the past.  All clouded, of course, by my own innate biases and preconcieved notions.

    Just like it is YOUR opinion that I am playing Miss Cleo by reading the minds of the Republicans after ignoring the fact that I ALREADY STATED that I was giving my opinion.

    So please leave your strawman at the door, unless you want to buy two tickets for the show.

    by math monkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:27:40 PM PDT

    •  That came off a lot snarkier than I expected

      Sorry.  That was too much snark.  But it is a strawman arguement.

      by math monkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM PDT

    •  I didn't ignore it I said it was your opinion.

      now your speaking for me. Hell soon you won't need anyone on the planet besides yourself.

      by B P Pgh on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:51:07 PM PDT

•  Wait: Republicans hate Hillary because ... ?

  "Republicans hate Hillary with a passion because their leaders have told them to hate the Clintons for 16 years.  This hate is built upon years of lies, innuendo, scape-goating, cheap shots, misrepresentation, bigotry (Bill was the first "first black President" since Harding), and religious intolerance.":

  I thought that was why Obama supporters hate Hillary.  Now I"m confused.  

  If x = y, and y=z, then

  x=z

  by mrogers2007 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:01:30 PM PDT

  •  unfortunately it seems

    like they both hate Hillary for the same reasons, imo.

    by DrKate on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM PDT

  •  MRogers --- I have posted this before, but...

    If you haven't seen it...

    It is a lot like the Jews in the 1930s..

    Jews were attacked for being rich Capitalist bankers, while at the same time--- being attacked for being Communist Bolsheviks...

    Hillary gets the same treatment-- right-wing nuts call her Jane Fonda (blablabla), and the O-nuts call her a warmonger, racist (blablabla)...

    What a unique "gift" HRC and I share: the ability to make everyone around us insane...

    Are there rules on re-posting?

    by Saxman on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM PDT

    •  Here we go again, a Hillary supporter

      once again playing the victim card, this time comparing Hillary to the victims of the Holocaust. Will it ever cease??? Have some decency, please.

      by Vera Lofaro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:35:39 PM PDT

      •  Only in the sense that I suggested...

        I didn't say that Hillary was going to be put in an oven, did I?

        Are you going to start quoting Godwin's Law, or some shit?

        As usual, you didn't actually understand the point - very Obama-supporter-like...

        Ok, let me spell it out for you: When you hate someone, you can always find a reason, whether it makes sense or not.

        Obviously, Jews can't be both bankers and bolsheviks. But it doesn't matter if you hate enough.

        You hate HRC so much, you can no longer read and comprehend.

        I await your troll-rating for having the temerity to make a post that DOESN'T kiss Obama's butt.

        by Saxman on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:42:44 PM PDT

        •  I do not hate HRC,

          I just like Obama better. Can you ever understand that? There are things I find distasteful about Hillary and the entire Clinton campaign. Making her into a victim, really rubs me the wrong way, especially as a woman, and a woman who is only a couple of years older than Hillary. We are not victims, unless we chose to be. I not only find it distasteful, I also find it insulting when I see the campaign portray Hillary as a victim in an effort to garner support from other women. Before I die, I would love to see a woman President, I feel only then will woman have true equality, but I don't think at this time Hillary is that woman. You like to condemn the Obama supporters, I like to think we are the more reasonable among us.
          I have, in my life, known many Holocaust survivors, and I find it extremely offensive to have people who have suffered from the Holocaust compared in anyway to a Presidential candidate in the United States.

          by Vera Lofaro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM PDT

    •  good point (sorry this is arriving so late...

      I sometimes lose track of threads).

      There's an old saying "If both sides are complaining about you, you must be doing something right."

      Expanding on this saying would make a nice diary I think.

      by mrogers2007 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM PDT

  •  false anology

    2 = sqrt (4)
    -2 = sqrt (4)
    2 does not equal -2
    sorry, but my screen name IS math monkey, after all.
    all in good fun

    by math monkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:43:13 PM PDT

    •  That's a good one!

      Sorry this is arriving late ... I lost track of this thread.

      by mrogers2007 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM PDT

•  They "liked" Kerry too, unitl he was the nominee

  After that, well we know how well he was treated by the right. Oh, by the way, put on your slicker and rubber boots, you're in for it.

  by the fan man on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM PDT

  •  What are you talking about?

    I'd be more likely to equate Kerry and his campaign to Hillary Clinton and her campaign than to Barack Obama.

    My reasoning being:

    1. Hillary/Kerry both ran on a "safe" platform (safe, in the sense that they seemed "smear" proof Kerry as a veteran and Hillary from the attacks in the '90s). The problem here is that because we naturally assumed they were "safe", we were completely blind-sided by attacks which we didn't see coming. In Hillary Clinton's case, there are already signs of some problems (Borat-gate, some affairs which Bill had after he left the White House, etc.)

    2. Hillary/Kerry have inconsistent voting records on Iraq. You remember "flip-flopper"? Well, guess what, Hillary Clinton was "for the war" when it was popular and "against the war" when it wasn't. Kerry's problem wasn't that he was "Weak and Right" it was that he was weak, period. He didn't take a position, and so we had a nominee which was the worst of both worlds, those who opposed the war didn't think that Kerry would do anything to end it, while those who favored it felt that Kerry would "cut and run". The same can be said of Hillary Clinton, she's dodgy on the issue of Iraq, which is one of the reason why a number of liberals aren't particularly happy with her.

    3. Hillary/Kerry don't come across as "authentic", people don't believe that either one means-what-he/she-says or vice-versa. Yes, I know, George Bush is a lying son-of-a-bitch, but he seemed like a what-you-see-is-what-you-get sort of guy. Plainly put, despite everything, Bush seemed more trustworthy than Kerry even though Bush was a lying dog. Hillary Clinton has that same problem, especially with John McCain. Barack Obama, plainly put, doesn't. He seems and is authentic, the same isn't true of Hillary Clinton, which, by the way, is a by-product of the "scandals" of the 90s.

    by NMLib on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM PDT

    •  I'm talking about the chatter on FOX and other

      right wing talk shows prior to his nomination. I distinctly remember favorable comments about Kerry by FOX contributors and on air personalities, including "he'll be hard to beat", "a man of character and conviction". The "flip flopper" was in the wings, waiting for him. It was all bullshit, just like it is now. It's a goddamn briarpatch with these guys. It doesn't matter which candidate we offer to the GOP, the right wing noise machine will kick into high gear. If Hillary, the job is easy, just tap into that "I Hate the Clintons" crap, if Obama, he's "unproven, a poser, talks great who cares, how will he stand up to Muslims", you know the drill.

      by the fan man on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM PDT

      •  Which, by the way, assumes that...

        The Right-wing is united behind their guy, they aren't. That's the big difference between then and now, they need to get their own base excited about McCain before they can even try to smear Obama. Hillary's far more susceptable to those types of attacks, just because she's trying to out-macho the Republicans, that's another problem Kerry had, btw.

        by NMLib on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM PDT

        •  They can only get their base excited by an enemy

          and in this respect, Hillary is an easier target. Always has been. Hillary's canvas is already painted, Obama still has room to move. But that room can backfire as well. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I believe the GOP is more scared of Hillary, which is why they love to demonize her.

          by the fan man on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:33:26 PM PDT

    •  are you fucking kidding me?

      They were sweet as pie to Kerry.  Until the summer.

      by Salo on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM PDT

•  But there are folks in the middle

  who pay little attention to politics but vote every 2 or 4 years based on their feelings about the candidates, and I think Obama will pick up many of these simply because he's refreshing.

  No question, though, the Republican Hate Base will let him have it with everything they've got.

  by Bob Love on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:04:34 PM PDT

•  I wonder. What will happen with these

  Republican voters who fall for Obama now, when the Republican leaders they used to respect start speaking lies? We're walking on untrodden ground here; I think we could see a backlash if Republicans start unfair smears against Obama too late in the game. If they like the man, even if they don't expect to vote for him, they're going to take character attacks a lot differently than they would for a Democratic candidate they had no interest in.

  by Mardish on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM PDT

  •  Dreamworld

    we could see a backlash if Republicans start unfair smears against Obama too late in the game.

    Are you new to politics?

    by Moresby on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM PDT

    •  :D

      I had to recommend this as it made me laugh.

      by Step Beyond on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM PDT

      •  Has anyone asked the kittens how they feel?

        love you sig

        by math monkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:46:48 PM PDT

    •  Relatively speaking, yes...

      but could you refute my point with evidence rather than a snarky demeaning comment? It's easy to say "you're wrong," it's a bit harder to back it up.

      I don't think we have seen a candidate with this kind of cross-party appeal in several decades. That makes him a bit more immune to partisan, ignorant attacks. The kind of attacks Fox uses only work if you're already ignorant about the person being attacked. People are waking up to Obama's message, and if they already know a bit about him, it becomes a bit harder to abuse peoples' ignorance to attack him.

      by Mardish on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:32:02 PM PDT

      •  Look ...

        He's got the softest treatment from the press imaginable, and he still hasn't closed the deal with Democrats.  Against a candidate that we're told "everyone hates."

        Right now the press is building him up to make the race more interesting.  They don't think he will get the nomination.

        But if that ever happens the rules will change.  All the attacks you think he's survived will come back.  And this time the press won't except his "answers."
        There will be new attacks that we don't even know about yet.  They won't except his responses to those.

        And that's what we've never seen him deal with.  Because he's never been the front runner.

        Maybe he has this magical ability his supporters claim, but I've yet to see it.  Because he hasn't yet been placed into the position TO deal with it.

        Remember, in 1992, Bill Clinton was essentially the front runner from the get-go.  He earned my respect because of the way he survived attack after attack, and came up looking cheerful and ready for more.

         

        by Moresby on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM PDT

        •  I disagree, but share your concerns.

          I think he has shown his aptitude at parrying attack after attack from the Clintons. How about his response to the "false hope" comment, as a prime example?

          http://www.reuters.com/...

          He responded thusly:

          And this rhetoric against "false hopes" only made him stronger. This was actually one of the issues that turned me towards supporting him, his apparent skill for retorts when fighting the empty attacks thrown his way. Did you miss his response to Romney in the last debate? That's another great example.

          Notice he's using comedy to fight both of these attacks. As Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have demonstrated, nothing shows how vulnerable these people are than turning their own comments back at them with greater wit.

          I share your concerns about the press and their agenda, however I find it hard to believe that a popular presidential candidate won't get the airtime he'll need to fight biased coverage. If this movement is real (and I see every indication it is), which network in their right mind would deny the ratings from fair coverage, if not coverage that FAVORS Obama?

          Holding these beliefs might make me naive. I take comfort that I'm not the only voting American naive enough to believe we can aspire to inclusive, rather than divisive, politics.

          by Mardish on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:07:13 PM PDT

          •  Yup, you're naive...

            Obama's current coverage is all the result of him being an underdog.  Remember them doing the same thing with Bush in '00.  They let him get away with almost anything.

            If he gets the nomination, buckle in.

            BTW, the response to Romney in the debate is one that he swiped from Huckabee, who's been using that one for weeks.

            by Moresby on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM PDT

•  It seems Obama supporters ...

  believe everyone will fall in love with him he way they did.

  Right now, he's getting such soft treatment from the press, it's very hard to judge how he'll handle real attacks.

  by Moresby on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM PDT

  •  We are just more realistic on how fast and

    furious those attacks will be in regards to Hillary or Barack.

    by DrMicro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM PDT

•  Of course there will be right-wing smears,

  and no matter who the Dem nominee is.
  In either case - Obama, Hillary - I suspect that the smears will be so over the top that the average American's sense of fair play will be offended, and they will turn out counterproductive for the Rethugs.
  Or so I Hope.

  by Lepanto on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM PDT

•  You do not

  get it.. the repubs that I personally know..they do not like their candidates. They are not switching cus some asshole like rush tells them obama is a muslim or black.

  You think these repubs coming out for Obama like my mom are fricking stupid?

  The clintons gave them plenty of ammo.
  Bill Clintons infidelities over the years alone is far more ammo than they would ever have on obama.

  We know their angles... his drug use 30 years ago,his name, his father, his liberal record,rezko, his church, his religion.

  Ok.... I am not scared ,are you?

  by Hawkjt on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM PDT

  •  Here's the thing

    Most of the Pugs don't think Obama's going to get the nomination.  He's never led in a national poll among Democrats.

    But if he starts to seem to be the likely nominee, buckle in.  It's going to get nasty.

    Maybe he'll withstand it, maybe he won't.  Be his negatives will rise.  His support among Republicans and Independents will shrink.

    I'm not sure his campaign or his supporters are really ready for it.

    by Moresby on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM PDT

  •  I guess many here don't know too many Republicans

    I have a news flash, they are people too, just as committed to their principles as we are to ours. You don't have to agree with them to realize just because they vote differently doesn't mean they are evil. Now I am not talking about many Republican elected officials, they are evil. The Republicans I know are not so happy with any of their candidates. The main reason I hear is insincerity. Remember most voted for Bush and were screwed over, most want out of Iraq, just like us. They are reasonable, they look at the field of candidates, and say, "who can I trust". It is not who is saying what I want to hear, it is who can I trust. They are looking at Obama, and believe, like many of us, I may not agree with him on the issues, but with this man, at least I think he is sincere. My husband is a very conservative Independent, his primary issue is illegal immigration. He completely rejects Obama's position on illegal immigration, but he believes he will do the right thing, the humane thing, not the thing that will hurt legal residents of this country, and not the thing that will benefit the corporate interests of this country. It is all about trust. Something that is lacking in McCain, Romney, Hillary and even Huckabee.

    by Vera Lofaro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:56:46 PM PDT

•  Good first diary. Post a tip jar!

  I think the idea that "Republicans will vote for Obama, too!" is the silliest and most counterproductive argument that Obama's campaign can possibly employ.  I understand how it would work in the GE, or in open contests such as Iowa that allow independents to cross over, but why they think this makes a hardcore Dem like me want to vote for him is just mystifying.

  by Kevvboy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:16:24 PM PDT

  •  Tried to express this

    same point in the recced diary that is refered to here.

    I was told I was sad, asinine, missing the point, calling the diarist a liar etc.
    I just dont care for open primaries. Its easy enough to change your party registration as it is now, but letting Republicans(and vice versa) help pick our nominee is ridiculous.

    by Osiris on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:25:48 PM PDT

•  Those warning shots you mentioned

  came from Democrats.

  by ParaHammer on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM PDT

•  Can't resist the temptation to say,

  As long as they like him until November 5, 2008. :-)

  by slksfca on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM PDT

  •  AMEN

    by math monkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM PDT

•  The Twisted Reason of Wingnuts

  I partially understand it. Having read some Ayn Rand in my youth, having liked PJ O'Rourke, and in my circles that occasionally acquaint me with the broken glass base, I think I kind of get where they are coming from.

  But more important, I know several personally who say they are voting Obama. They think he is better then anything on their ticket, and they are sick of Bush and Bush politics. They know it's time for a change and a very big, serious, obvious departure from business as usual.

  This handful of people are not a poll or representative of anything but themselves, but I mention them because they indicate to me that Obama is an acceptable choice to some percentage of Republicans.

  Hillary doesn't work that way. Same people I'm thinking of would do anything to stop her. The hatred and rage she brings out in the opposition is not going to be transferred to Obama if he becomes the nominee. It won't work like that at all.

  by The Raven on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:20:12 PM PDT

•  In the end, I don't expect

  many registered Republicans who consistently vote GOP will vote for Obama.  Just as Democrats don't vote for a Republican (the "Reagan Democrats" left the DEMs long before Reagan).  What candidates of either party seek is not votes across the aisle but respect or merely absence of hate across the aisle.  That's what leaks into the ranks of the IND and can be decisive in elections.  

  What makes McCain a stronger candidate is that for years Democrats have praised him for one or more moves.  The man is a freakin Goldwater/Reagan/GWB clone and Democrats say, "he's okay."  One of the stupidest moves of elected DEM officials.  That's not going to get many Democrats to vote for McCain but it does leave a positive residue for the man which INDs can pick up and go with.  

  Sure fewer GOP will feel an attraction for Obama by Nov but imagine how much more intense the loathing for Hillary will be by then if she's the nominee.  Against Romney or Huck, Clinton (assuming she can keep Bill stashed away in an undisclosed location) would win.  Against McCain?  A dicey proposition.  

  by Marie on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM PDT

•  This diary is correct.

  IMHO the cons, using the TM, are going to come after Obama with a vengeance. It will be nothing short of an attempt to destroy his political career. I don't think it will harm him. He seems to have that Reagan teflon thing. Nothing sticks. If they fail to destroy him, it will only make him stronger.

  Obama is not afraid of the cons, while Hillary is clearly scared to death of them, despite her words. I think the cons have grossly underestimated Obama. They thought they wanted Hillary for the nom because they thought she would be easiest to beat. The cons let Obama have teevee time because they were not scared of him, and thought he would be easier to beat than Hillary.

  Aw, the smell of unintended consequences.  

  by Village expects idiot home soon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM PDT

  •  Win or lose the election ....

    Hillary will unite what is left of the Republican party. Cries aboutsexism will be disregarded as it is not neccasary to go there. They merely have to say her name.

    If they want to smear Obama's faith or race ...
    It will kill the Republican base as being labeled racist.

    Obama is not as easy of a target and some here tend to think.

    by DrMicro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM PDT

    •  The republican party is always united.

      They will be just as united against Obama as they will be against Clinton.  30 percent of the people in the U.S. think George Bush is DOING A GOOD JOB.  Those people are out of our reach.  The other 70 percent are in play, to some extent.

      I think the Obama Teflon has served him very well, turning any attempt into discussing race or even mentioning it into a Big Racist Attack that rebounded on whichever hapless person stumbled into the trap that day.  But in the GE, he'll be facing repubs who really ARE racist.  They dont mind being labeled as such.  They get labeled as such all the time.  It doesn't bother em at all.

      He's a sitting duck.

      by Kevvboy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM PDT

      •  He's not a sitting duck

        I never meant to imply that he was a sitting duck, only that he is in the same boat (to mix my metaphors).

        by math monkey on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:20:51 PM PDT

        •  We all seem to be in agreement.

          We've got incoming. I watched the TM tonight. One of the big three anchor's was really going after him in an interview. Obama handled it WELL. Like Kos, Obama refused to be defensive. That always unsettles the interviewer when the Democrat refuses to act like they did something wrong.

          by Village expects idiot home soon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM PDT

•  Here's what they'll use --

  by markusd on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM PDT

•  C'mon--this is silly.....

  Republicans hate Hillary with a passion because their leaders have told them to hate the Clintons for 16 years.  

  Statements like this make democrats look like complete doofuses.

  by Azdak on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:52:10 PM PDT

  •  Ignoring them makes Democrats look like that.

    by DrMicro on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM PDT

•  Here's what they'll use, for starters --

  "Most Liberal Senator" - National Journal 2007 ranking

  "Endorsed by Moveon, which  basically called General Petraeus a traitor - (General Betray-Us)"

  "Endorsed by Teddy Kennedy" (I do know a few Republicans - and the hatred they have for Kennedy is unbelievable, and they still talk about Chappaquidick as though it happened yesterday

  "His pastor and close advisor, Wright, has a close association with the vicious anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and traveled to visit Qadaffi with Farrakhan - and has called Israel a racist state, and favors divestment"

  Unfortunately, all of this happens to be true.  

  Yeah, I'll bet that he is going to win a ton of Republican votes.  As well as a lot of Jewish votes.

  by markusd on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM PDT

  •  they will wedge him to death

    although they appear to want to have a dem in office as the situation in Iraq collapses--they can revive the dolschgeschloss legend

    by Salo on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:24:19 PM PDT

    •  revive the what?

      they can revive the dolschgeschloss legend

      ????

      by markusd on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:30:58 PM PDT

    •  They want a Dem

      preferably Hillary in there so they can blame all of the problems on them.  

      by UpstateDem on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:36:35 PM PDT

•  Here's the big difference

  against McCain, either Hillary or Obama is likely to lose.  The difference is that with Obama, we would likely keep the House and with Hillary we might not.  

  by UpstateDem on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:15:24 PM PDT

  •  Not a chance.

    That old man?  Either one of them could beat him.  

    by Kevvboy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:58:11 PM PDT