[bhamlaxy]

obama however always stayed away from directly attacking hillary.

Wrong. Remember Hillary holding up the campaign literature in Ohio attacking her on health care and NAFTA and shouting "Shame on you Barack Obama!" My teacher works for the media firm who designed them, which received a lot of heat for the negative ads relying on shaky quotes and claims. Both campaigns have gone negative, although less so from Obama.

im seeing mccain winning the election if hillary wins over obama.

Hillary is actually doing a decent amount better in current polls comparing McCain vs. each of the candidates.

but seriously guys, lets be honest. the democratic primary is just entertaining filler to last us to the general election. There's no way that either of the democrats will have a chance against McCain and I'm not saying that because I'm a fan of his (i'm not), but hell, if the Republican party could get Bush elected to a second term, they can do anything and McCain WILL be our next president.

This is something I disagree with. Not only is McCain a little shaky when it comes to conservatives, which will damage his ability to get out the vote, Obama and Hillary both have pretty good aspects. Obama is a fundraising machine and has the unique ability to get new voters out, and Hillary has the base on lock down. The war is extremely unpopular, and many people just simply hate the republican party. I also think at the end of this primary mess the dems may view a clinton-obama or obama-clinton ticket as the only viable solution, which would massacre McCain.

Additionally, if your argument was true, the Republicans would have gained control of congress in the 06' election.

however, i do not believe in the "change" obama is preaching about. obama is not a saint, and is still a part in that web involving lobbyists and powerful people behind the scenes, as have been shown by all those endorsements by those important democrats.

Oh yea, because Obama accepts Lobbyist contributions.... oh wait, nevermind, he doesn't. His entire approach is a remarkable change from Bush. The Bush presidency was all about money. His campaigning relied almost exclusively on bundling, where corporate fat cats get all their rich friends and employees to donate thousands of dollars. I forget the exact statistic, but something like 630 people were responsible for 30% of his funds raised. Bundlers who raised specific amounts were labeled pioneers and rangers. What does this result in? Disgusting amounts of favoritism when it comes to contracts and such. Nearly 40% of the "bundlers" were appointed to positions within the government. Specifically, one of the biggest individual fundraisers was Ken Lay from Enron, who brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars. The result? He got to hand pick 40% of the commission that regulates his own industry! This is transactional politics, which is what Obama seeks to change. He doesn't answer to the richest 1/10th of 1% of the country. His fund raising is based on hundreds of thousands of small contributions, and his policies are for the people.

Bear in mind that McCain is slaughtering both Obama and Hillary in cross party voters (voters who would voted against party lines)

McCain is an extremely liberal republican . . . and a moderate democrat is more likely to vote republican than a moderate republican is to vote democrat.

And bear in mind Obama is attracting hordes of brand new voters and political contributers.