The Agitator:

… 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.

I have to agree. Over the next few months, the Democratic party will get to choose who the next president will be: Barack Obama or John McCain.

He also focuses on what I feel is the most disgusting irony of this situation:

… like President Bush, they [pro-war advocates] 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.

Why do any anti-war people ally themselves with Clinton? It’s certainly not a libertarian perspective — many on the far left also recognize her duplicity on this issue. Is it just because she makes negative comments about this war right now? An unpopular war started by her political enemies during an election that is widely perceived as STILL being a referendum on that war? It wouldn’t matter what the hell “it” is — if it’s unpopular and supported by President Bush, then she is going to be against it. Look closer. Look at her statements about overseas interventions (even specifically ones in Iraq!) in any context other than this election — and try to tell yourself she’s anti-war.

She’s not. She’s anti-wars-started-by-Republicans-that-are-going-badly. Please, please, please… I’m not convinced that Obama will do the right thing on the war (wars are sooo very appealing to presidents), but if you are seriously a one-issue anti-war voter, please… vote for Obama. And I say this as someone is who strongly opposed to the vast majority of the rest of his platform.

Also, on a tangent:

The same goes for unchecked executive authority. From the article Radley links regarding her warmongering:

As Michael Crowley of The New Republic has noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq. “I’m a strong believer in executive authority,” she said in 2003. “I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority.”

Sure, you can say “well, maybe so, but certainly not as much as Bush has!” And I agree that he has pioneered remarkable new frontiers in executive authority (also remember that her comment is from 2003 — as a member of the Senate she had to be pretty aware of how Bush was defining executive authority over the last 2 years, but didn’t even then feel compelled to speak out against it) — but I’d say that Clinton’s difference on that front would be one of intentions rather than extent. Perhaps she wouldn’t have extended that power into surveillance or Guantanamo Bay, but look at her platform with an eye for social engineering — implementing that is going to take its own share of executive authority.

Double Also:

On the basis of entirely zero information other than my admittedly very poor oracular powers, I predict that the chances of McCain choosing Huckabee as his running mate are approximately 100%.  Go ahead, give me reasons why I’m wrong.  You’ll probably be right.  Maybe I’m just greedily anticipating the jokes I will enjoy on The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Conan.  It might be the only positive I’ll get out of this whole charade.