I know there are such people, on the other hand, I haven't talked to anyone who's fallen for it, or heard anyone in the press still pushing it. It looks to me like that story was ko'd the minute it was released.

Personally, I don't know how the Republicans are going to treat Obama. In the first place, Hillary's tactics have been so universally decried that the Republicans are really setting themselves up for a fall if they try going down the same path. Secondly, I'm not sure "Republican politics" are the same as "Bush politics." It's really W./Rove who utilized the smear campaign to win two elections. I don't remember Bush Sr., Dole (Bob or Libby), or McCain trying that. I know everyone's poised for the Republicans to play dirty, to "swiftboat" the election. But I'm not sure that's going to happen. And, like I said, even if it was on the agenda, Hillary's failure to succeed via mudslinging might force Republicans into taking it off the table.

Understand yesterday was the template, if you were paying attention. Some rabid right wing jackboot went of on Obama and McCain responded by apologizing. That's what will happen in the General Election; the attack will come from the "unaffiliated" right and McCain will take the hgih road. But that low road is going to be worked, and worked hard, in McCain's favor.

Either last night or Monday night, listening to the news, I heard the beginning of a McCain event at which the person introducing him mentioned 'Barack Hussein Obama' and several other things in that vein. (I believe it was the Tyler, TX stop and the person was the mayor, but I haven't found the clip yet). McCain upbraided him for the attack; but it's being said, and by people in his party. (And this is also where the 507 groups have the most effectiveness.)

A coworker mentioned yesterday that she was checking Google News and came across a comment on one of the newsmagazines (I just asked her and she's not sure which, but she said it was something like Time) in which someone went on about Obama being one letter away from Osama and why should we put ourselves in 'danger' like that?

Rove may or may not be doing anything in the background, but he had plenty of students.

You can argue that there are whackjobs out there, and there are - but it's more whether their message gets traction in some form rather than if they're out there.

Dead People Server and Wikipedia have nothing on Vidal. Maybe he was mentioned in Buckley's obituary and that caused the confusion.

You said what I was trying to think of earlier. Bill knew how to be both.

I want to point out that Frank Rich in yesterday's column referenced the very same Katie Couric interview that I was castigated here for talking about--the one in which Hillary's hubris first surfaced in all its self-destructive glory. I was told on this forum that she was just displaying a refreshing confidence. Well, I obviously wasn't the only one who thought she was obnoxious in that interview.

I agree with your main point, although a basic tactic is to chop down the frontrunner. But when Hillary was pelted from all sides, very little sympathy resulted.

Shirley Chisholm ran for Prez in 1972 and afterwards she said that she believed she faced more obstacles and discrimination based on gender than race.

I thought the point about denouncing and rejecting support from Farrakan (sp?) was just stupid.

Joe and Marj and I have been the pilloried ones on this forum, for having the audacity to back a relative political newcomer.

(Read: "in eight years or so.")

Before there were two there were three - Clinton Obama Edwards and the same shit happened - she was the one attacked - I do not believe it was merely because she was the supposed front-runner