Actually, I would argue that Gilchrest really is more significant. Being on the DNC platform committee puts her pretty fiercely in line with the Democratic Party, at least in the past. This other guy sounds like a pretty moderate Republican, at least in terms of party dogma.

Gilchrest isn't a MILF like Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the newest rage in the Palin era.

Wait... another "maverick"? This time for Obama? My world just did a backflip. I thought mavericks were there to energize the Republican base. Which Universe am I in, anyway?

Maybe they "feel like he's an elitist"

somewhat haphazard? Welcome to reality, Wayne. The decontamination chamber is over there.

Isn't it interesting how so many retiring Republicans finally find the nerve to say that their (former) party is a bunch of crooks, but the retiring Democrats rarely feel the need to denounce their party?

You'd think there might be a real difference or something.

*

Why is the former treated as less significant than the latter?

We all know the answer, but I'll spell it out in case David Broder (as far as I know, not yet a member of the "Enough!" club) should look in: because the media has two standards--one for Dems and another for Republicans.

It's because Lady Lynn is a BILF, and you don't get many of those -- most billionaires are ugly old men.

And there's already a Republicans for Obama organization, which includes former Repub officials, not just some bogus PUMA-type thing.

Jim Leach spoke at the Dem Convention, of course none of the MSM paid attention.

The issue that Gilcrest was really good on was Iraq. He voted for the Oct 2002 AUMF, but later in the war distinguished himself, along with the "Freedom Fries" guy.

I was sad when he lost the primary.

Not to mention, have you noticed how Lady de Rothschild claims Obama is too elitist for her? I mean seriously, can someone from the family Rothschild call anyone too elitist?

And the losers at CNN let her get away with it without pointing out exacly which family she's married into...incredible.

Actually, I'm not so sure the Gilchrest thing is as big a deal. He lost in the GOP primary. This can be easily perceived as sour grapes.

Now, don't misunderstand. I love that he did this. But to the right wing, he was always a RINO (supported Iraq withdrawal, decent on the environment, etc.). So just as few of us are surprised the Lieberman is working for his BFF McCain, it's not that big a deal that Gilchrest is supporting Obama. The big difference is that, because of the 6 year term, Lieberman can (and almost certainly will) change parties next year. Gilchrest got booted before he could do that.

It's actually not that big a deal. There have always been a few in each party for each election that have endorsed across the aisle, sometimes based on local issues, sometimes on ideology. But when Gilchrest does it, it's not a big shock. The bigger shock is that he remained a Republican for this long, probably based in part on their unwillingness to punish him with a very slim majority. (Again, cf Lieberman.)

The Baroness, on the other hand, was active in this year's Democratic Convention. She is presumably a current Democrat who is crossing the aisle. That's not to say that her physical attractiveness (such as it is) doesn't have any effect on her television invitations. It's simply to say that, even if she were an ugly male, it's more newsworthy, IMHO.

Still, always good when the moderates in the other party get fed up with their nominee. Means that some of the mushy middle may actually vote for my preferred candidate!

When a Dem endorses John McSame and Ping Pong Palin, it's NEWS. It's like "Man Bites Dog." It's crazy insane, so it's newsworthy.

When a ReThug endorses Obama, it's Ho Hum, because they're just being reasonable. Reasonable behavior is not newsworthy. "Dog Bites Man" is not news.

Gilchrest was an old line Republican, conservative on economics and moderate to liberal on social issues. I understand his endorsement of Kratovil in the House race. Andy Harris is a Club for Growth guy and Bob Ehrlich, still hoping to run again for Governor with the support of the mouth breathers, came out hard for him against Gilchrest in the primary.

Kratovil is a fairly conservative Dem-you have to be on the Eastern Shore-and closer to Wayne on most issues.

The endorsement of Obama must come from the heart, though, since Wayne has NEVER bucked the party before now.

Please correct that last sentence to read: "NEVER bucked the party on an endorsement before now."

Someone above compared him to Lieberman, he was a much more loyal Republican then that.

Last correction: THAN that.

I dunno. We could probably cost McCain the all-important tinfoil hat vote with a shadow 527 "Rothschild's Fund for McCain".
And everytime she's on TV, she drops words like "rednecks"(referring to Clinton supporters) and is pretty much warping space and time with irony calling Obama an 'elitist'.
(I mean, as everyone else has noted, marrying rich European royalty, living part time in NY and part in one of the Stately Homes of Britain makes you a member of the elite. It does not seem to confer class or sensibility or wisdom.)
Gilchrist would be a good catch, but I don't think Lady Lynn's PUMA act is helping.

It's the Lady Rothschild calling Obama "elitist" that generated the attention.

If Gilchrist would have said something totally buffoonish he would have gotten more attention too.

"I'm not so sure the Gilchrest thing is as big a deal. He lost in the GOP primary. This can be easily perceived as sour grapes."

Yo dumbshit, Lady de Whorester lost too.

If he really wanted to create a direct parallel with "anti-elitist" Rothschild, he could've said, "I can't support John McCain because he's a Republican man."

Hagel's been close, but hasn't quite endorsed Obama over McCain.

Former Los Angeles Mayor (and prominent Republican) has come out and endorsed Obama too. That should be a VERY big deal.

Ooops. I meant that to say,

Former Los Angeles Mayor (and prominent Republican) Richard Riordan has come out and endorsed Obama.

Why is the former treated as less significant than the latter?

Because we love royalty and the aristocracy and what they have to say. It's as if Scarlett Johanssen had crossed over and endorsed McCain.

*

"Orwell" wrote: There's a gazillion celebrities and 90% of them support Obama.

As is becoming increasingly common in response to your drivel, "Orwell," so what?

Wait, I thought Lady Rothschild was an EILF.
E=elitist.

Why is the former treated as less significant than the latter? -- Steve Benen

Lots of reasons...
1) Money talks loudly; not only has she been a big-time fund raiser (for Hillary) but Rothschild just screams "money". Money is how the Rothschild family got the "de".
2) Despite (or, perhaps, because of) US having no titled nobility of its own, Americans do love them their upper classes.
3) She had been a vociferous and dedicated Hillary supporter; her support of "anyone but the nigra" feeds into the narrative that Obama is unable to win Hillarites over.

PS Just what is "MILF"?

Uh, there are 435 members of the house.

Muthas I'd like to F.