Obama vs. Hillary

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

My colleague Jacob Sullum notes that Republicans crossing over may have given Hillary her win in Texas last night.  That would seem to jibe with the tacit support she seems to be garnering on right-wing blogs.

As I wrote several months ago, it would be really stupid for the Democrats to nominate her.  Obama will whip McCain.  Hillary may be the GOP’s last hope of retaining the White House.

The other reason I think the pro-war right is flocking to Hillary is that, like President Bush, they doubt she’ll pull us out of Iraq.  She’s an unabashed warmonger.  And don’t forget, she voted for the war in Iraq.  If she gets the nomination, there will be no real anti-war candidate left.  The pro-war crowd could then boast that neither major party primary produced a real anti-war candidate.  They’ll try to spin this as validation of the war in Iraq.  That’s an exaggeration, of course, given that two-thirds of the public still believes Iraq was a mistake.  But it would seem to indicate that the war is quickly fading as a definitive issue for voters–even Democratic primary voters.  And that can only help McCain.

I’d probably support Obama against McCain.  I couldn’t vote for Hillary.

While I’d guess Obama would eventually disappoint once taking office, there is at least the chance that he’d take a more restrained approach to executive power, at least on issues like drug enforcement, civil liberties, transparency, and foreign policy.  While I have fundamental disagreements with Obama on the proper role of government, he does at least seem to be untethered enough from ideology that he could be convinced in some areas with pragmatic arguments, if not philosophical ones.  I also think there’s a good chance Obama would make some headway in criminal justice reform, and in stopping the mass federalization of crime.  On the other hand, the NAFTA-Canada stuff was cynical and stupid, and exactly the kind of political maneuvering Obama’s campaign purports to be against.

Still, Clinton and McCain are known entities.  And what we know is pretty unappealing.  McCain’s marginally the better of the two,  but only marginally.  They’re actually remarkably similar on a wide array of issues.  Beyond policy, though, they’re both unreservedly power hungry.  I’m certain that both would continue to accumulate executive power, make government less transparent and accountable, and would extend our military presence overseas.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if McCain tried to bring back conscription.  I don’t really see any other way we could continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, start a new war in Iran, keep up the bluster with Hugo Chavez, and still maintain any kind of readiness should something else break out in another part of the world.  The military’s already spread perilously thin.

The Democrats would be really, really foolish to nominate Hillary Clinton, especially if Obama goes into the convention with more pledged delegates.  Talk about alienating your base.

But then, this is the same party that gave us John Kerry.  Hence, last night’s results.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

55 Responses to “Obama vs. Hillary”

  1. #1 |  Rob | 

    Radley, you’re OK with giving the democrats the run of things for 4-8 years? They wil hold on to both houses with little effort, and if Obama is elected, he gets elected in a landslide most likely. Giving him a “mandate” to govern from the left. Understanding what I understand about him, I fail to see how that would be good for anyone who would call themselves a libertarian, or classic liberal..whatever.

    Not saying you should vote for McCain, but when I do the pros and cons I find myself with not too many pros on either side, but more cons on the other.

    If anything its a reason to sit the election out.

  2. #2 |  Salvo | 

    From a L(l)ibertarian standpoint, Obama may not be ideal when it comes to things like deregulation, health care or free markets. However, as a person who reads this blog for the civil liberties issues, and as a person to whom this issue is the most important, I’ll give you one reason why I have great hope for Obama:

    He’s a Con Law professor. That’s why he knows the civil liberties issues inside and out, and with a couple notable exceptions(John Yoo, I’m looking in your direction), Con Law professors always seem to be on the right side on the civil liberty issues. Obama has his problems, again, from a libertarian standpoint, but as far as civil rights and government oversight/constitutional issues? He’s probably the best candidate, even including the ones who dropped out.

  3. #3 |  scared stiff | 

    Democrat voters have to be some of the dumbest people on earth. Hillary has made no secret of the fact that she wants to do things essentially the same as the dreaded G.W.B. I guess it’ll be ok, in their minds, since it’ll be a democrat doing those things.

  4. #4 |  Ochressandro | 

    Nothing makes republicans in congress actually act like republicans like a pinko in the White House.

  5. #5 |  Mike Leatherwood | 

    I really did not think there was enough crossover here in Texas to influence the outcome heavily. Too many local government nominations to be concerned with. A hotly contested sheriff nomination will trump any presidential ticket maneuvering here in the Lone Star State. Once I looked at the numbers, I may be wrong. In our very Republican county we had :

    Democratic Party
    Joe Biden 49 0.2%
    Hillary Clinton 14,632 50.2%
    Christopher J. Dodd 16 0.1%
    John Edwards 219 0.8%
    Barack Obama 14,192 48.7%
    Bill Richardson 63 0.2%

    Republican Party
    Hugh Cort 2 0.0%
    Rudy Giuliani 84 0.4%
    Mike Huckabee 8,028 34.1%
    Duncan Hunter 235 1.0%
    Alan Keyes 185 0.8%
    John McCain 10,677 45.4%
    Ron Paul 3,611 15.3%
    Mitt Romney 370 1.6%
    Fred Thompson 143 0.6%
    Hoa Tran 4 0.0%
    Uncommitted 197 0.8%

    Thats 23,536 voting in the Republican primary and 29,171 in the Democratic. There are very few Democrats in office, if at all, in our county. So, a) a majority of Repubs stayed home b) more Dems came out of the woodwork to let their voices be heard or c) there was a lot of cross-over. Hmmm.

  6. #6 |  JLM | 

    I have to agree- Clinton is the only prayer that the GOP has. I’ll vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee, and that would be the first time I’d have EVER voted for a major party candidate in a presidential election. If it is Obama I might consider voting for him, but most likely I would just vote third party as usual.

  7. #7 |  Gary | 

    To Rob,

    Obama is certainly no Libertarian. The problem is, neither is McCain and he’s probably considerably worse. The Republicans few areas where Obama MIGHT be better than McCain and Clinton.have proven that they spend money just as fast as Democrats; they just run up debt to spend the money whereas the Democrats raise taxes. I don’t see how one is better than the other; the government is growing at the same speed either way. Raising taxes stunts growth, but so does running up debt. The point is, both parties are committed to growing government at the same pace; the only difference is how they spend the money.

    Given that neither party will be fiscally conservative, I look at the list of things that Radley mentioned and I see a list of issues where Obama *might* be okay on. He might not be. McCain and Clinton definitely won’t be.

    In short, I know that McCain and Clinton will do everything wrong. It’s possible that Obama MIGHT do something right.

  8. #8 |  Gary | 

    My first paragraph should have started out as:

    Obama is certainly no Libertarian. The problem is, neither is McCain and he’s probably considerably worse. The Republicans have proven that they spend money just as fast as Democrats; they just run up debt to spend the money whereas the Democrats raise taxes.

  9. #9 |  EdinTally | 

    I love the smell of right wing fear in the morning!

  10. #10 |  buzz | 

    “I love the smell of right wing fear in the morning!”
    Really? You like the smell of bigger government? Higher taxes? Shifting more decisions to the UN? INteresting.
    What is it that makes you think McCain has any interest in destroying the military by bringing back the draft?

  11. #11 |  Chris | 

    If the democrats give the nomination to Hillary, they best get use to the result of losing Congress and various state offices. None of their base will come out and support Hillary. McCain will win in a landslide.

  12. #12 |  Bernard | 

    I suspect Obama would be a different kind of bad from a libertarian perspective. He feels to me like someone who believes in the power of government to solve problems and if he gets elected with two democrat houses I suspect that may be his explicit mandate.

    As dislikable as the other two candidates are, I’m not sure that’s something that makes me comfortable.

  13. #13 |  Eric | 

    A friend (Republican) and I (Democrat, in two party system at least) were talking about this last week.

    He said “if it’s Obama, I will vote for him before I vote for McCain.”
    I said “if it’s Hillary, I will vote for McCain before I vote for her.”

    I think that’s a pretty common sentiment; certainly there are lots of Obama supporters who would shudder to vote for Hillary Clinton and lots of Republicans who would shudder to put McCain in there. I can’t think of any other example where there will be such crossover of party voting.

  14. #14 |  Leshrac | 

    Thanks Buzz, conscription, what a nice smooth big word. As opposed to DRAFT. That puts a nice big glare on the war in Iraq doesn’t it?

  15. #15 |  whiskeyjuvenile | 

    The NAFTA-Canada stuff was only stupid and cynical if true. It wasn’t.

  16. #16 |  Kwix | 

    “Beyond policy, though, they’re both unreservedly power hungry.”

    Right here Radley, you hit it on the nose. I have little doubt that if Obama is the nominee that he will be elected president by the Democratic base and oddly I am okay with that.

    McCain scares the shit out of me and Hillary only slightly more so. Both have stood by and either outright cheered or at least quietly nodded as the Bush administration has circumvented the rights of Americans and collected powers that are not it’s to collect. I see no reason that either one would stop doing so, much less attempt to roll back some of these Presidential power grabs.

    Either way, in the general election I will probably be voting third party as usual but only with an Obama nomination will I fear the further rollback of my civil rights somewhat abated.

  17. #17 |  Kwix | 

    “He feels to me like someone who believes in the power of government to solve problems…”

    All three of the candidates in this discussion have expressed very vocal interest in the “problems that government can solve”. It’s just that Obama voices it in classical left style while Hillary and McCain couch it in the classical right style (minus the “small government” part, of course).

    Face it, all three are about using the government to “help” the US citizen, it’s just that two of them have vocalized the desire to continue squandering additional dollars and lives outside of the borders.

  18. #18 |  Les | 

    Really? You like the smell of bigger government? Higher taxes? Shifting more decisions to the UN? INteresting.

    You think the Republicans don’t want bigger government? Without paying for it? And to confidently continue their disastrous foreign policy? Interesting.

  19. #19 |  Mike | 

    I’m not convinced that Hillary will lose the general election. The primay is making her shed a lot of bad things — like Bill. She’ll emerge stronger. And when you have the chance to kill a beast like the Clinton, you have to take it.

  20. #20 |  maxnnr | 

    If Hillary is elected the white house will have belonged to the same 2 families for 24! years. no more bushes; no more clintons and no more kennedys. ever.

  21. #21 |  Six more weeks of primaries? Please, please kill me. | 

    […] vote for you over McCain? Or I don’t know, maybe they will. I have a very bad feeling about how hawkish a Hillary presidency could be. She voted for the Iraq war, firstly. (And yes, go back through my archives and you’ll find I […]

  22. #22 |  Bernard | 

    Kwix, you’re certainly not wrong about what they say. My worry is that Obama may really believe it. If the choice is between cynical old politicians who are unashamedly playing the game and bright-eyed newcomers who may really believe in the restorative power of socialism I worry that the latter may be worse.

    That being said, aside from the question of whether Obama would be better I broadly share the concern that the other two are known enemies of sensible or restrained government. I just suspect that the system inevitably throws out candidates who are going to continue to make things worse whether more quickly or more slowly. I’m aware that’s not a remotely profound statement, but I think the best we can hope for from Obama is that an energetic new president with a political mandate might encourage another spending spree (public and private) that delays the correction in public and private finances and makes everyone feel richer while the underlying deficits get worse.

  23. #23 |  Kukulkan | 


    I think the numbers are worse than you indicate. George H.W. Bush was Vice President for 8 years and President for 4. Bill Clinton was President for 8 years. George W. Bush has been President for 8 years. If Hillary Clinton is elected, a Bush or Clinton will have been in the White House for 32 years.

  24. #24 |  Matt Moore | 

    Les – I think the point is that Radley is not having “right-wing fear” like the idiot EdinTally seems to think (unless EdinTally is referring to Rush’s right-wing fear, in which case he’s not an idiot).

    Obviously Radley is not a right-winger.

  25. #25 |  Phelps | 

    While I have fundamental disagreements with Obama on the proper role of government, he does at least seem to be untethered enough from ideology that he could be convinced in some areas with pragmatic arguments, if not philosophical ones.

    o rly?

    One element shared by all fascist movements, racialist or not, is the apparent lack of consistent political principle behind the ideology–political opportunism in the most basic sense. One virtually unique aspect of fascism is its ruthless drive to attain and hold state power. On that road to power, fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in vogue and more likely to gain converts.

  26. #26 |  Chris Berez | 

    While I don’t think I could ever vote for Hillary, I’m still convinced McCaine will choose Huckabee as his running mate. Having Huckabee anywhere near the White House is a prospect I find absolutely terrifying. If it comes down to Clinton and Whomever vs McCaine/Huckabee, I honestly have no idea what I’ll do.

    I’m really hoping the Democrats nominate Obama, but it’s only because I can’t stand the thought of there even being a chance of Hillary winning the White House, no matter how small that chance is. I guess I’m going to have to wait and see if my fears about McCaine/Huckabee turn out to be wrong. But either way, I’m completely miserable about my choices this election. That’s usually the case, of course. But for some reason this election cycle feels even more depressing than usual.

  27. #27 |  Matt Moore | 

    As far as your analysis of the candidates, Radley: I’m no Hillary fan (she’s about the most grating and least charismatic national politician… EVAR) but I think she might just be the best of the three choices. If she’s anything like Bill she’ll at least be a pragmatic politician who will do whatever it takes to secure a legacy. Remember that it took Bill Clinton to get welfare reform (the most libertarian legislation we’ve seen since at least Reagan, if not earlier).

    McCain and Obama, on the other hand, ARE wedded to certain ideas and visions of the country, and most of those ideas involve more government control and power. McCain is just more open about it than Obama… once Obama gets elected I think we’ll watch him become much more left-wing authoritarian than he seems now.

    The best solution, I think, is Hillary Clinton and a Republican Congress. Unfortunately, this is impossible for at least 2 years.

  28. #28 |  Matt Moore | 

    Oh, and what I mean by securing a legacy: Imagine what the history books will say about the president that ends the drug war. If Clinton does that while in office whatever else she does, for good or ill, is pretty much moot, and I think she knows that, and she’ll try very hard to make that one, huge sweeping change.

  29. #29 |  Stormy Dragon | 

    >I also think there’s a good chance Obama would make some
    >headway in criminal justice reform, and in stopping the mass
    >federalization of crime.

    Or he could crack down extra hard to avoid being called soft on crime by the right. Sometimes the politicans you’d think would be your natural allies on some issue are the ones most likely to betray you. They think they can coast on their history with people who agree with them and are more worried about cutting off criticism from their opponents. (e.g. McCain’s recent vote for CIA torture. He figured his past stands against it would keep him the support of anti-torture people and was more worried about accusations that he is protecting terrorists).

  30. #30 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Beyond policy, though, they’re both unreservedly power hungry.


    As Congress gets more and more lazy, I find power hungry presidents to be decidedly unappealing.

  31. #31 |  nom de guerre | 

    “if (hillary) ends the drug war”.

    now what *possible* reason has hilly given, EVER, for anyone to make that leap? has she called for drug law reform? to repeal drug prohibition? massive decriminalization?

    not to my knowledge, she hasn’t. nor is it likely she will. for the obvious political reasons – a clinton doesn’t make politically risky policy statements – , and the fact that liberalizing drug laws would put the DEA and various other drug cops out of work.

    no clinton will ever call for a change that will result in a smaller gov’t payroll. not now; not ever.

    so why would you ever assume she might, matt? wishful thinking?

  32. #32 |  Ellis Wyatt | 

    If you want to restrain Big Government and increase the likelihood of being left alone, putting any Democrat in the White House while the U.S. Congress is controlled by the Democrats is not a good idea. In fact, it’s a terrible idea.

    Regardless of the relative strengths and weaknesses of John, Hillary & Barack, and regardless of what any one of them might or might not try to do as President, we can all be reasonably certain that the Democrats will hold both the House and the Senate and that they may even pick up additional seats in both houses. The best way to keep the U.S. Government as an entity from spending like drunken sailors and enacting more laws and legislation is to have a President of the opposite party who can veto legislation.

    Finally, I find it hard to believe that anyone who considers him/herself a Libertarian could seriously consider voting for either Hillary or Barack — both are unabashed, unashamed, party-line Big Government, tax-and-spend liberals. Though McCain is certainly not ideal, he’s the least of the three evils.

  33. #33 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > Obama will whip McCain.

    The hell he will.

    The blue-hairs will pour out in massive numbers for McCain if Obama is the alternative rather than splitting if it’s Hillary.

  34. #34 |  Tom | 

    Old people vote. They do not vote for black men with Muslim names. Obama has no chance whatsoever.

  35. #35 |  Zeb | 

    When have old people ever had an opportunity to vote for a black person with a Muslim (sounding) name?

    One nice thing about old people is that there is a lot of turnover. The old people of today are not the same as the old people of 10 years ago.

    And honestly, does anyone think that anyone who might possibly get elected is not going to spend like a drunken whatever on a whosimawhatsis? The not spending lots of money idea seems to have lost out to entitlements and militarism for now (and neither party is very good about controlling either of those things; do you think those bluehairs want to lose social security or medicare??).

  36. #36 |  Matt Moore | 

    nom – Yes, it is wishful thinking. She’ll for sure do something big and history making (like welfare reform), that was just the first example I thought up.

    One reason Radley supports Obama is because he thinks, with very little evidence, that he might be the least hardcore drug warrior of the bunch. That’s also wishful thinking.

  37. #37 |  Kwix | 

    Matt Moore,
    Or she could do something “big and history making” like Medicare Part D. Just an example.

  38. #38 |  Salvo | 

    I’m not so sure it is wishful thinking. Here’s why:

    1)Con law professor. My con law professor once had us watch a random episode of ‘Cops’; then we were to write what the civil rights abuses we had seen were. Speaking from experience, most con law professors share Radley’s opinion that the pendulum has swung way too far towards authoritarianism. Most worship the Bill of Rights; that’s how they ended up teaching that subject in the first place.

    2)One of the things I’ve seen in some of Obama’s stump speeches is a line about how we’re incarcerating at a faster level than ever before and we need to stop. If that’s not a threat towards the drug war, I don’t know what is.

    3)He was a community organizer in South Side Chicago, where a lot of victims of the drug war come from. Obama has seen the casualties with his own eyes, from the perspective of those most affected. That’s going to play into his decisions.

    4)I’d point out that the one of the biggest expansions of the war on drugs happened during the Reagan and Clinton years. You think Reganite McCain or Hillary are going to help reverse that trend?

    Yeah, right. I’ll put my money on the black guy from Chicago who’s knows the 4th Amendment, knows what habeas corpus actually is, and has seen first hand what the drug war does.

  39. #39 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > 2)One of the things I’ve seen in some of Obama’s stump speeches
    > is a line about how we’re incarcerating at a faster level than ever
    > before and we need to stop. If that’s not a threat towards the
    > drug war, I don’t know what is.

    What it “is”, so far, is a politician moving his lips.

    — Now if he were to stop being such a chickenliver and actually *talk* about the WosD, he’d be more than just another socialist politician selling himself as the 2nd (or 3rd or 27th or….) Coming of JFK or MLK.

  40. #40 |  Matt Moore | 

    Kwix – True that. We’re taking our chances with all these candidates, but Salvo does have some very good pro-Obama points.

    I gotta say, other than Obama being anti-war, there’s really not very much to distinguish these three from each other. And the war in Iraq is not as important to me as I think it is to Radley or most of his readers.

  41. #41 |  Jim Collins | 

    I changed my voter registration to Democrat for this primary election just so that I could vote for Hiliary. I figure she’s more beatable than Obama and I can still vote for McCain in November. I’ll change it back next year.

    By the way Kukulkan GHW Bush was only VP for 4 years. Quayle was the first term VP under Reagan.

  42. #42 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > And the war in Iraq is not as important to me as I think it is to
    > Radley or most of his readers.

    One thing Democrats are going to find out is that it’s not that important to most voters either, and certainly less than it was in the last election.

  43. #43 |  Mikestermike | 

    Jim Collins-

    Huh? Is this a lame try at a tired 90s Quayle joke? Quayle was VP UNDER Bush, not “instead of”.

    To prevent further pedo-oral juxtapositions, I recommend at least a cursory glance at Wikipedia, Encarta, or your local library’s World Book Encyclopedia…

  44. #44 |  mtc | 

    “Nothing makes republicans in congress actually act like republicans like a pinko in the White House.”

    I think Ochressandro has a very good point here. From a libertarian perspective, Obama in the White House with a Republican controlled Congress could work out pretty well. Whereas neither a Republican nor Democratic Congress would do much to check Clinton or McCain in their lust for foreign adventures and the expansion of executive power, I could see a Republican Congress giving Obama a lot of trouble with his more odious domestic measures. Even if the Republicans took back either the House or the Senate it might be enough. But I guess this is probably a moot point after all, you don’t hear a lot about how the Congressional balance is shaping up this early in the election cycle, but I’d bet it isn’t good for Republicans. And of course if Obama sweeps in decisively, there will probably be a coattail effect for the Dems in Congress.

    But there’s always 2010 and the prospect of a six year stalemate…Hell, that’s already happened once in my young life. Not that Bill in the White House and Newt controlling Congress is exactly my vision of libertopia, but it doesn’t seem so bad compared to what we could wind up with…

  45. #45 |  Tokin42 | 

    I’ve mentioned this here before, there is a large chunk of southern dems and northern white union members who are not going to vote for Obama solely because he’s black. They’ll tell pollsters they love him but when it comes time to pull the lever, no way. Zogby had obama up by 15 in ohio a couple of days before the election, barely ahead in texas, and the exit polls in CA had him leading by a pretty decent margin and he ended up losing them all. When Obama ends up losing we’re going to have to listen to months of commentary about how racists the republicans are because they wouldn’t vote for the Dem candidate because he was black while the registered dems will get a pass. (See the Ford race in TN last year).

    The first black president will be a republican not a dem.

  46. #46 |  Jim Collins | 

    Please ignore my comments about Quayle. I had a brain cramp. Shouldn’t try to post and work at the same time.

  47. #47 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > The first black president will be a republican not a dem.

    Walter Williams? Get off your fat can and run….

  48. #48 |  Fay | 

    I’m probably more “bleeding heart libertarian” than most of you, but I recommend you look at Obama’s health care plans/talks, as well. He is a lot more into talking about free market solutions than Hillary is. My main hope for him is that he doesn’t seem as bound by any mainstream ideology… he’s at least willing to entertain non-socialist solutions to problems. He is not AS “old school tax-and-spend” as Hillary.

    That said, back in the day, many people said Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had. Remember that? He just took Republican ideas and made them his. Someone else already mentioned welfare reform. I tend to think the parties are in the midst of a Dixiecrat-style swap when it comes to fiscal prudence.

    And as for the growing size and scope of the government, the fact that ANY of you are still fooled into thinking Republicans are better with money than Democrats, is rather remarkable, considering the history of the federal budget in the past 30 years or so. How the Republicans have managed to keep that meme out there is simply beyond me. The Democrats are completely inept at talking about economics, I guess.

    For that matter, I’ve long said that if ONE Democrat would just embrace real tax reform, a flat tax being my preference, then this country would be on its way to some serious progress. Sigh. I’ve written Obama about it, but he hasn’t answered. :)

  49. #49 |  Mike | 

    Hillary’ous discussion with obama.



  50. #50 |  ts | 

    “Really? You like the smell of bigger government? Higher taxes?”

    Biggest government spender ever: Bush II.
    Second biggest: Reagan
    Third biggest: Bush I

    Clinton, for his myriad faults, actually lowered the deficit.

    For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been the party of big government, the party of huge government spending. Sure, they don’t raise taxes because they’re the party of “borrow from your children”, aka “spend deficit money like a drunken sailor.”

    If you don’t like big government, vote against the Republicans. They are, quite literally, the biggest “big government” builders in the history of humanity.

  51. #51 |  Mike | 

    Bill Clinton’s work doesn’t much matter to me (though at one point I idolized the guy). What matters to me here is the fact that Hillary now disgusts me. I was previously in favor of either of them, then as I listened to the two and saw Obama’s reserve and thoughtfulness, began to prefer him. Hillary continues to speak down to the electorate, to become falsely outraged, etc. It disgusts me. The presidency is not a game, and I prefer thought and reason to disingenuous soundbites.

    At this point I think I’d rather vote for McCain than Hillary. But it’s really all about the war for me. It’s not about just constitutional law, it’s about international law as well.

  52. #52 |  Bad | 

    Worth noting that Obama is a Constitutional Law scholar: that alone makes me think more of him in the realm of whether or not he’d have a more nuanced, rather than balls-to-the-wall, concept of executive power and citizens rights.

    Of course, Cindy McCain might be just as good, what with her own experience abusing prescription drugs, getting busted, and spending ten years in jail, after which she became a passionate advocate for the injustice of sentencing laws. Oh wait, no. Only the first thing happened.

  53. #53 |  Mike Schneider | 

    > Worth noting that Obama is a Constitutional Law scholar

    Oh, great….he’s a freakin’ college-graduate.

    He knows EVERYTHING now…..

  54. #54 |  Ginger | 

    I hope Obama finds his own voice in refuting Hillary Clinton’s slippery, insincere, negative and calculated form of campaigning. I dislike her more than I did to begin with due to her dirty tactics, lies and distortions of what her opponent’s point of view is. Hillary is a very polarizing figure; her nomination will make it harder for Democrats to win the Presidency and could impact Congressional seats as well. I hope we can elect a President whose word we can trust and whose character we can actually respect, for a change. Such a President would be Barak Obama.

  55. #55 |  Peggy McGilligan | 

    Hillary Clinton tries to deny the rotten job she’s done as a New York Senator, but Hillary defers to the voter on the topic of Reverend Wright. That’s because when Hillary & Bill Clinton founded their own college (in a sanctuary city, she calls an “empowerment zone”), they also combed through 40,000 résumés, all to the left of the Rev. Wright. The faculty sets the tone at any university, and the Clinton’s crème de la crème of the hard-left insured that theirs would be a blatant testimony to radical anti-Americanism and the politics of racial hatred. You say you’ve heard of tenured radicals – but never the University of Bill Clinton? Imagine what a couple of Clintons could do with a state university. Toss in a Vermont Lt. Governor and a few Middle Eastern flight students for good measure. Prepare to be amazed, your education is about to begin: http://theseedsof9-11.com