[RabidBartender]

"Here's the fact: the winner of the GOP primaries ultimately will be the person who attacks Dems the most. Not attacks each other. Hillary figured that out, and has completely ignored her primary opponents. Republicans should figure that out as well."

Only if you're voting against someone. The Democrats tried this in 2004 with their "Anyone But Bush" campaign, and it failed. Now, I see a lot of Republicans (primarily supporters of Guiliani) with a "Anyone But Hillary" mantra.

As for your prediction, it falls flat. You discount the media's ability to paint the attacking Republican as "mean", "racist, or "sexist"; or their ability to flat-out ignore the story (as they will likely do with this ad). It's a stacked deck.

[princess leah]

They almost won in 2004, even with a loser like Kerry running...I believe if we stop bickering, pull together and agree to vote for whomever we want to in the primary, but support the winner for the national election so that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have any controlling authority over General Petraeus and our fine troops. Her comments this week ought to be a slap in the face for anyone NOT voting (R) in the general election. If people want to be a “one issue” voter, then atleast let that one issue be for our national security which we won’t have under a demoncRAT!

[LS]

Nope. Our side---which is still a slight majority---wants a fighter. Only the people so terrified that Rudy might actually win will deny that, so far, because most of the other candidates like Duncan Hunter are either fighters with no name recognition/media clout, or, so far, like Fred, have been busy criticizing Fidel Castro rather than the Dems.

Don't get me wrong, Fidel is a commie pig, but there is a time and place---AFTER you win the election.

Republicans want a fighter. Any Republican who is busy attacking other Republicans won't have a hope in hell of winning a general election.