"The Republicans would eat him (Obama) for breakfast..."

Little problem with facts and logic there: i.e. absolutely none.

Obviously, it's not a question of Obama's problems with Republicans (specifically McCain--anybody else would be a comparative pushover)--in a vacuum. It's either Obama or somebody else against McCain. The other likely possibility is clearly Hillary. So the comparison is particularly apt.

1) As I said earlier, Obama has neither the 1960's legacy nor the 1990's legacy to weigh him down. Hillary has both--and will never be able to shed either.

1960's: Hillary's funding request for funding for a Woodstock concert museum. McCain's classic--and pitch-perfect--response. "I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time".

How could Hillary have been so stupid?

Brings up the old generation and political '60's gap--try yawning divide--with all its bitter heritage, which played a huge role in sinking Kerry.

1990's: a grab-bag of scandals, some well-known, some not so. Some already seared into the American consciousness.


2) Obama's strong suit is "change". For people who believe strongly in this, Republican attacks would have very little impact--might even make them stronger Obama supporters.

Hillary has no strong suit, especially against McCain.

3) Obama has an army of young enthusiasts--willing to stuff envelopes, ring bells, etc. forever. Hillary--not so much.

4) It's clearly Hillary, not Obama, who has the big problem. Her top quality is supposedly experience. Pathetic compared to McCain's.

5) Obama's appeal is across the board--including independents and some Republicans. Hillary's support is very narrow--look even at her Mudcat support--not impressive, to put it mildly.

6) Hillary has such huge negatives that she will unify a fractious Republican party--against her. Obama--not likely--he will even get Republican votes.

If anybody cares to debate any of this--with facts and logic, not innuendo, please feel free.