Much is being written and said about the Hillary voters who say they will now jump to supporting McCain for president, rather than Obama.  No matter how many times I see it or hear it, it never rings true.  I started mulling it over when I got into a discussion of whether Hillary's female supporters would vote for McCain, and I could find no reason for them to do so.  Then I started wondering:  Who are these Hillary-McCain voters and why do they make that leap?

There's been a good deal of chatter lately about Reagan Democrats. It apparently started with a random question at TAPPED: were Reagan Dems in fact still Dems? Ezra Klein picked it up from there, assisted by Ruy Teixeira. Then digby, Atrios, and tristero (responding to an argument made by Sean Wilentz) got in on the act.

Whew.

There are two basic points of discussion on the subject. First, will Reagan Democrats ever come home to their party? And second, how much does it matter?

How can social conservatives who yearn for an America where the Ten Commandments are posted on every stationary object across this great nation be so obtuse as to the meaning of those Commandments?

I’ve been asking myself that very question after reading the results of a study that found people with conservative ideologies are happier than their liberal counterparts. It’s not that I begrudge the conservatives their happiness. Heck, this country was founded on the right to pursue happiness.

No, I’m concerned about the reason conservatives are so happy. According to researchers Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University, conservatives are happy because they are able to rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Can you imagine how much fun the GOP would have had if the Democrats had pulled something like this?

Republicans Vote Against Moms; No Word Yet on Puppies, Kittens
...

It was already shaping up to be a difficult year for congressional Republicans. Now, on the cusp of Mother's Day, comes this: A majority of the House GOP has voted against motherhood.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.

"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.

It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard. Worse, Republicans are now confronted with a John Kerry-esque predicament: They actually voted for motherhood before they voted against it.

Republicans, unhappy with the Democratic majority, have been using such procedural tactics as this all week to bring the House to a standstill, but the assault on mothers may have gone too far. House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

By voting against it?

Mother-hating morons.

For those out there putting a lot of credence into or are doing a lot of hand-wringing over the unrelenting smearing of Barack Obama by conservative forces, within not only the republican party but also the media and Clinton campaign, please keep this in mind. These same forces will smear anyone who gets in their way and their attacks should be taken with a large grain of salt. As I've said before, they wouldn't think twice about smearing each and everyone of us here at Street Prophets for our association with a web site run by Markos Moulitsas. A person, who in the eyes of Bill O'Rielly and others of his ilk label a anti-american hate monger and/or worse.

Your Republican values in action.

When William F. Buckley Jr. died Wednesday at the age of 82, conservatives mourned the loss of an intellectual titan whose life’s work had helped give birth to the modern conservative movement.

But seriously, how much brainpower does an individual need to command in order to be considered an intellectual titan in crowds populated by the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?

My fellow progressives:

I’m afraid the Republicans have caught on to us. Brett Winterble, a contributor to Human Events, uncovered the bare bones of our plot to take the reins of power from conservatives. Here’s what he’s uncovered so far:

What we have is the sick and twisted dreams of Pinch Sulzberger, Don  Imus, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews come true: the GOP has been forced to choose a nominee designed to cause the base to retch, and thereby not vote. Guaranteeing 4 years of Clinton score settling or Obama socializing entire corporate sectors.

I was concerned when I saw an online advertisement for Barack Obama Exposed! while surfing the ’Net recently. After all, if a scurrilous, anonymous email that couldn’t even distinguish between the Illinois senator and a lawmaker from Minnesota could cause problems for the campaign, how much damage could be inflicted by a recognizable repository of conservative thought?

Not to worry. This compilation of 16 essays penned by contributors to Human Events contains no revelations about sexual predilections or a double life. In fact, some of the articles mention Obama only in passing. Barack Obama Exposed! has all the earmarks of having been patched together after a hasty Google search, the result relying upon Human Events’ 64-year history to lend it some gravitas. (Imagine: Human Events, a profoundly conservative publication, was founded in 1944, in the middle of wartime, during the term of a popular liberal president. Despite this, none of Human Events’ founders were branded as unpatriotic or treasonous. The mind boggles.)

If you don't want to read a somewhat personal rant/vent over a recent incident in my life, then just go on to the next diary. I need to get this out and I need feedback from friends who DO care about who gets into the White House.

Picture this: We're watching Primary Colors on the tube. I hate watching such politically motivated movies and they make me wonder at the mindset of those who a) make the movie in the first place, and b) put it on the air during the Primary Season in 2008. I'm always leery of such morality plays, though it's a pretty good one. A few comments are exchanged regarding the movie. He dismisses all politicians as bad news. Our 'discussion' starts getting more heated on both sides as we go on.

Following the "06 election where Republicans had their hats handed to them over the war in Iraq the last bastion of refuge they held out for their "08 strategy was the strength of the American economy. On paper everything looked fine...