"The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell."

When Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, Rush, the Free Lance Star and others have either words of praise for Hillary, or endorse her, or say they'd vote for her under certain conditions, it means only ONE thing to me as the Red Signal Light flashes:  They believe that this, their tacit endorsement, will alienate from Hillary the Democrats who are undecided and, because Hillary seems acceptable to those Republicans, they'd vote for Obama in the primaries.

And the reason for such Republican tactics--to get Obama to win the primaries and run as the Democratic nominee-- is because they believe that Hillary, for all her negatives, has a better chance to beat McCain or whoever.  Then, we might ask, why do the polls show Obama doing better than Hillary, and why wouldn't the Right worry more about Barack?  It's the Bradley effect.

In swing states it's very possible that the people who now say in polls that Obama is their choice will vote otherwise, for the Republican, in the general election.  Further, the current polling still is in the early phase, still not meaning very much, and Obama shows a 4 or 5 point lead and Hillary tied or a point behind McCain.  But again, it's early.

Further, along this speculative line, if Obama beat Hillary and debated McCain a few times, I believe that despite his better, youthful appearance compared to the creaky old McCain, the public might well have, by that time, grown used to the hand and arm gestures of Obama, the nebulous promises of hope, the anti-war man vs. the war hero and not looking so strong, the empty talk of future greatness and coming together.  The public had enough details of coming together when Bill met Monica, and they heard enough about being a uniter, not a divider, that misbegotten promise of the Chimp.  The speechifying by Obama might begin to resemble, after a while, a rhetorical Swiss cheese, a little yellow with a lot of holes.

Hillary, on the other hand could, because she speaks loud and clear and is impressive in these debates, and could remind Mr. Straight Talk of the good old days with the Keating Five, his pandering to Bush (and kissing him in public, something which Larry Craig was never even caught doing), whose coterie called McCain's wife nuts and said he had a bastard child--black, no less, to compound his perfidy--and so on.  Hillary is good at this rough and tumble, as she's shown, and would also make McCain, with his tired ways, look ancient.  And finally, if all else failed, she could do what Obama could not:  cut off McCains' testicles and throw them over the White House fence for Barney to chew on.  

That's why I believe this convoluted plot has come about.  I believe that the Right believes that Hillary would beat McCain and that Obama, after the glow has worn off, might win, but maybe not, as McCain played out the sympathy for his war record, his foreign experience, his Congressional work, all called EXPERIENCE. I don't believe he could get away with that against Hillary, and the show of the Right supporting Hillary is the Right's way of getting the undecided independants to vote for Barack in the primaries.
If this sounds Rovian, so be it.  I've read much more convoluted plans in any spy or thriller novel you pick up, and this sounds exactly like Rove's and others' work machinations.

truth be told, the other side smells blood and opportunity with HRC atop the Dem ticket.  More of the base shows up to vote against her (and Bill), than to vote for McCain (who they loathe).

The Republicans - masters at microtargeting - can read the nation's mood better than anyone, and they realize that Obama taps into the nation's zeitgeist better than HRC, better than McCain.  

With Obama on the top of the Dem ticket, the true believers on the right have no other choice than to punt the football, lay low, raise funds, and recruit one of their own (e.g., Huckabee or Sen. Tom Coburn) to run in 2012.

You said it!  I would not for one minute be lulled into thinking that the right wing really, really, likes Barack Hussein Obama.  Did no one hear Mittens yesterday throw the gauntlet that DEMs are terrorist sympathizers?  The GOP are salivating at the thought of running Teddy-at-BHO's-side ads over and over and over again.  They will play to the basest fears of  Americans i.e., "The Islamist terrorists are to get you and your children! McCain is your only hope to be safe! You can only trust the GOP to be tough enough to defend our Freedom(tm)!"      

Fred2Blue: Where's you're anti-FLS bravado now?  

Hillary Clinton is a member of the DLC leadership. She's running ads in NE and LA featuring Bob Kerrey and John Breaux!

Noonan is one of that type of Republican who looks at the world rationally and tries to make objective judgments; she comes at it from a different balance of core beliefs than we do, but not necessarily over the edge. Coulter, of course, is a complete wacko, and a performance artist more interested in promoting herself than anything else.

I personally think that Coulter's comments about supporting Hillary are a attempt to pump up the anti-McCainites in the GOP for one last attempt to fight off the inevitable.  We've had some juvenile threats on our side that Obama supporters would disappear if Clinton won the nomination; this is the same thing on the other side.

As for Noonan's admiration of Obama's skills, I think that's genuine. It's not that uncommon among GOP pros. And while these people will fight Obama if and when the time comes, I don't think they relish the prospect.

said he'd bring the troops home?

the Free Lance Star,the bastion of Fredericksburg right-wing conservatism, will endorse the Republican....always has....always will.  

Still remembering when Paul Akers (FLS editor) last year called local Democrats stringy haired hippies.  So what's he up to this time?  

I believe deep down that the Republicans are more afraid of Hillary than Barack, but no matter.  They'll lie at this point whether in praise for Obama or praise for Hillary, and it's not because they like or respect either one.  It's to do with who believes Hillary or Barack has the better or worse chance to beat McCain.

I might be totally wrong about what I said about Hillary's or Obama's chance of beating McCain and how the Republican spin machine decides whom to praise. But I'm not wrong about this: I'd bet that the Republican biggies are more afraid of a Hillary presidency.  She has shown she can work with their lawmakers and they might fear she could sway them to her side based on reason (with George Bush gone) and the constituencies' desires, rather than continue the total division of parties.  I believe she, rather than Obama, has the better chance of obtaining Congressional unity because she is tough enough, smart enough, and has to date worked with disparate Right-wing senators. And they know.  Forgetting about campaign rhetoric, many Republican senators have spoken extremely well about her.  Remember?  Go back a ways or Google--you'll see.

I see her in the future as being more in line with what the Republicans would want to deal with, as they already have, because of her background.  I don't think Obama would have the same cache as she would, but of course, that's just an opinion.  But it is part of the package as to why I prefer her to Obama.  I see and feel that a more traditional figure, Hillary, would be a better transitional president to a more golden era of politics than would Obama, for she has already earned the grudging respect of that part of Congress that has to be won over, the part of Congress I personally despise but see as the group we need for a better future in this country.

And should there still be cockroaches like Delay to be confronted, as President with a Democratic Congress she couldn't be vetoed.

Little bitty centrist steps aren't going to get us out of our problems anytime soon ... or, more pessimistically/realistically, before it's too late.

We're at a historic crossroads and either the American electorate realizes that and steps up and does something decisive or history's tides will sweep us to wherever they are going to take us.

You speak as if the Republican Party is run by a cabal that can control their voters.  If there were such a group, it would probably be in their medium to long term interests to let the Democrats take control and try to confront some seriously intractable problems and not be able to solve them.  'Cause there's a very good chance that whoever the president is come January, there are some big problems growing bigger that may not be solvable.

Taking that logic one step farther, maybe it would be better for this country if it were Clinton vs. McCain and McCain wins.  Then, after four more years of pain and compounding problems, the American electorate would finally be willing to step up and elect a president who was willing and able to confront the structural problems that are the root cause of the mess.

Peggy Noonan WSJ has an excellent analysis of the Obama candidacy and she like many Republicans admire how skillfully he has campaigned.  There's no denying his charm and oratory skills ..... Obama is the toughest democrat to run against and beat in the fall.

The Hillary Billary campaign does not have the momentum and they do galvanize the opposition base.

The FLS op page isn't always written by Paul Akers, though his name appears at the top of the column. They would just not prefer Hillary as a possible President.

On TV, MSNBC, and in the Wash Post, they've been noting (FINALLY) that the combined daily audience of Rush and Sean Hannity is 20,000,000 people--PEOPLE WHO VOTE.  Add to that the group who may not catch Rush or Sean but DO get home in time for Laura Ingraham, Neil Boortz, Mark Levin, Mike Reagan, and others, all big players in the whacko right game.  Add a few million more.  Then, take the 1/3 of the country that still thinks Bush is doing a GREAT job, about 30% say, and you'll agree that such a number is made up of the above brainwashed audiences.  The pundits, I notice, have lately been talking in very serious terms about the right wing cabal, a true cabal whose roots Joe Conason traced in his excellent book.  The above speak as one on any given day, and they get that day's subject from somewhere centra;.  And the White House dwellers, Cheney, Bush, et al, appear on their programs regularly!  Odd?

No matter what, those right-wing listeners/viewers cannot be swayed--They Cannot.  Anyone that wants to join with that group and get them to employ their "core values" is, to me, nuts. Their core values are an overwhelming hatred of Jews, Catholics, Liberals, Pro any-rights people, blacks, and those of any intermediate color other than bleach white.  WHAT, you say I'm exaggerating?  Then listen on a daily basis to the phone calls these broadcasters get, listen to the callers on C-SPAN--You'll hear enough venom to poison the population of China (who they also hate).  I don't want to be anywhere near their core values, it would be like airborne anthrax.  If you believe that a black man (Obama) can reach to their "better" nature by speaking in the words and cadences of Martin King (who they also hate), hey, I gotta bridge to sell ya.