John McCain or Hillary Rodham-Clinton? Superficially, the answer should be simple. It’s the most frighteningly soulless individual on the planet, the Lizard Queen. Stare into her dead, unblinking eyes and shudder. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Hillary is likely to be more damaging to the country for two reasons.
1. The superficial comparison does not account for the Nixon-to-China phenomenon. As the mindless support of George Bush on the part of conservatives showed, it’s always easier for someone who is nominally right to move left, and vice-versa. Consider the contrast between Somalia and Serbia and Iraq. The level of national interest was similarly low in all three cases, but it is indisputable that a Wilsonian war for the expansion of democracy was far more popular among Republicans when initiated by a Republican president than it was when initiated by a Democratic one. When Hillary moves left, there will be resistance from the conservative commentariat. When McCain moves left, there will only be excuses made for him by the same conservatives who mindlessly defended George Bush.
2. Hillary is worse on the broad spectrum of political issues. But on the three of the four issues most dangerous to American liberties and the state of the nation, McCain is worse. He’s worse on immigration, he’s worse on the freedom of speech and he’s worse on the various wars and occupations. Only on the right to bear arms is he arguably better, but for all her intrinsic leftism, Hillary hasn’t shown herself to be an enthusiastic gun-grabber.
So, who is the lesser of these two definite evils? I won’t support either, because I think it is, well, evil, to knowingly line up behind evil, but it’s an interesting case to consider. I don’t include Obama, because as I’ve insisted from the start, the Magic Negro is only in the mix to keep Democrats entertained for the first half of the Lizard Queen’s coronation march.