In today's .1% world of neo-con nonsense, I suppose, a .1% chance that Obama has multiple wives and yet still can't get enough of Rezko as well…..is all close enough to declare as being factual.

I mean, hell…..if it's good enough to justify savagery and torture…..it surely is good enough to destroy a possible establishment enemy.

Facts? Who cares about that silly stuff?

King: I must say I get a kick out of "failure to do any vetting of Obama" part. There's nothing being hidden. He's been a public figure and out in the open for a long time.

What you are talking about is that Obama hasn't been subjected to the Kewl Kidz/establishment media sh*t throwing machine yet. That's what you must mean by the highbrow sounding word "vetting".

"Vetting" in today's fantasy world means asking as many "when did you stop beating your wife" questions and then blaming you for not being able to answer. Must be hiding something. Must be anti-press. On and on. And you know this to be true.

They got nothing on Obama. So Hillary helps 'em by suggesting what gotcha questions of irrelevancy they should ask.

And just for larry: Hey, maybe McCain got all those alleged war-wounds from angry husbands beating his ass with clubs when they found him doing their wives. I don't know for sure….but maybe.

First of all, I always laugh when a liberal calls a Clinton or Democratic attack "Rovian". Clinton attacks are "Clintonian", nothing else. They don't take their cues from anyone else, and certainly not from Rove. Nice try, though.

Second, your question is mostly moot until very recently, because Obama was spared the usual scrutiny candidates receive until very recently. He was literally handpicked by the Democratic power structure. Hillary was afraid to attack him because of his race until it was evident she was going to lose if she didn't and she got desperate. That's when the 'kitchen sink' strategy started. In my mind, the real media scrutiny of Obama only started a few weeks ago. He largely got a pass prior to that, and the media was openly adulating him, until their prejudice became so evident that people began to criticize the media for their irresponsibility and failure to do any vetting of Obama. Once Obama did start to get the hard scrutiny everyone else gets (and that Republicans are subject to nonstop), it shook him and he faltered.

However, many who like(d) the Clintons didn't quite understand how they operate and the manner in which they tend to capitalize off grouping people.

They're not as bad as some on right, but its clear many Democrats are starting to realize certain unsavory things about the Clinton political machine.

Was that a positive or negative response to my post?

Shine on!

Do you think Obama could have arrived where he is today if his supporters were "slow" about concluding Clinton's tactics were very much Rovian in their style?

The Democratic Party is much more engaged in the process then you give them credit for. Republicans, on the other hand, would rather have an authority figure TELL them who to vote for. It's a lot easier that way….less of a fuss.