Rush Limbaugh argues that conservatives in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont should vote for Hillary Clinton today.

As usual, Rush is right. It’s better to keep Hillary alive in order to keep the democrats fighting right through their convention, which may even possibly feature the traditional democrat bloodbath.

And Obama is decidedly scarier than Hillary. He is a talented demagogue of extremely unsavory ultra-left background, who lucked into an unexpected seat in the Senate courtesy of Jeri Ryan‘s divorce, then was propelled right into presidential candidate status by one speech at the democrat convention in 2004.

McCain probably has a better chance of beating Hillary. And I’m not sure myself that we aren’t better off just taking our medicine in the form of Hillary and going into opposition for four years. Bad as she is, Hillary is a known quantity. Hillary will do a couple of very annoying leftist things, but will basically govern (the same way Bill did) by opportunistic and calculated triangulation. Obama is a comparatively unknown quantity, and has alarming abilities to gin up ecstatic emotionalism. We really don’t want Obama to win.

The first drops of blood are in the water, and reporters are aggressively circling an Obama campaign (which is beginning to paddle frantically) with questions about secret reassurances to Canadian officials about NAFTA and questions about Obama’s real estate deal with financier Antoin Rezko, currently on trial for politically-associated extortion.

As Susan Estrich recently predicted, the relationship of the press to Barack Obama may be about to change from that of teenage girl to pop star to that of predator to prey.

NBC describes the Big Zero fleeing a barrage of hostile questions. Poor guy! he’s not used to that kind of thing.

Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.

Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.

Obama claimed that when he had first denied the meeting between Austan Goolsbee and any members of the Canadian administration he provided “the information that [he] had at the time.”

He added, “Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to reassure them. They reached out, unbeknownst to the rest of us; They reached out to Mr. Goolsbee, who provided them with a tangible conversation and repeated what we’ve said on the campaign trail.”

When did the meeting take place? Why did the Canadian officials reach out? Did Goolsbee not come forward right away and admit the meeting to Campaign Manager David Plouffe and Obama when both denied it last week? These are questions that went unanswered as the press conference was cut short. …

Toward the end of the press conference, the question of Goolsbee’s meeting was raised again. Obama answered curtly and then walked out after a staffer called last question. The press erupted with shouts, but Obama continued to walk out.

He paused only to say, “Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We’re running late.”

The Collins Report is probably quite right about the eventual outcome.

Putting Caliph Barack Blessing Osama’s numbers in perspective

The media ignore this, but the Democrats are headed for reruns of 1972 and 1984. During both years they were euphoric about their chances.

In 1972 George McGovern was to be the final triumph of the left in its war against the war in Viet Nam. They thought had mainstreamed socialism “Power to the people! Comes to mind.”

Noted political morons like Jim Bouton, Warren Beatty, Dick Gregory, and Ron Kovic worked at the grassroots to sell socialism masked as peace and justice. Isn’t always?

McGovern took the worse beating in American history up to that point.

The irony is that we Republicans, too, will be repeating history. Just as in 1972, we will probably defeat an exotic extremist from the democrat party’s leftist fringe, but we will be electing a liberal Republican who will proceed to compile a long record of personal accomplishment consisting of doing exactly what our democrat opponents want. I believe he will also, just like Nixon, make fatal political mistakes and leave office providing the democrat’s with a virtual blank check for winning the next election.

Peter Kirsanov of National Review has some suggestions for questions for Barack Obama, if the press ever get off its collective knees and begins investigating his candidacy, instead of merely worshipping him.

Sen. Barack Obama has received the most fawning media coverage of any serious presidential contender in memory. Although several news stories in the past week have suggested that the press is now poised to demand greater specificity and pierce the senator’s vaporous rhetoric, he continues to float along on a stump platform consisting mostly of hope, unity, and leadership.

Should members of the media bestir themselves from their full swoon, they may feel obliged to offer the public a more concrete version of this candidate.

To that end, the media may commence by posing the many questions Senator Obama has not adequately addressed. Here are a few they might consider.

1. You’ve stated that as president you’d transcend the sharp partisanship that pervades Washington, but you favor a rapid pullout from Iraq, plan significant tax increases, oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, and favor Supreme Court justices in the mold of Stephen Breyer — positions strongly opposed by most Republicans. Accordingly, on which of these issues would you be willing to compromise, and to what extent? Which Democrats do you think would give a little, and how would you convince them? How would you get interest groups and donors to go along? …

6. Stephen Moore calculates that your tax increases would result in a 52.2 percent income and payroll tax. Moore also states that your estate tax would be 55 percent, the dividends tax 39.6 percent, and the capital gains rate 28 percent. Do you dispute these numbers? If so, please provide your respective rates.

7. You admit that you won’t extend the Bush tax cuts. What’s the highest personal-income-tax rate you’d support? …

10. Which of the following, do you maintain, poses the greatest threat to America? Please list in descending order of danger: Global warming, lack of health insurance, radical Islamic terrorism, loss of manufacturing jobs, and nationalist Russia. As president, to which threat would you devote the most energy and resources?

Complete article.

Barack Obama is going to end America’s racial nightmare and take us beyond the divisions of the past is the promise. But, as Brit Hume reports, the Obama campaign’s behavior differs considerably from the rhetoric.

Some African-American superdelegates who support Hillary Clinton are reporting threats and intimidation from people wanting them to switch to Barack Obama.

Pressure on black superdelegates has intensified since civil rights icon John Lewis switched his allegiance from Clinton to Obama earlier this week.

Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II tells The Politico some superdelegates are receiving what he called nasty letters and phone calls, along with threats that they’ll now be opposed by other Democrats in reelection bids. Cleaver says some even report being called an “Uncle Tom.” Adding — “This is the politics of the 1950’s. A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

California Congresswoman Diane Watson reports she also has received threatening mail — but says she would rather lose her seat than violate her principles. She says she cannot switch her vote simply because Obama is black.

Victor Davis Hanson explains the democrats’ fundamental disconnect with the ordinary American voter.

The forgotten American listens to Hillary and Barack and thinks all these promises are nice and well and good, but figures that they expect someone like herself to pay for all those programs for all those who chose to live life differently than she did—for whom in most cases there was as much or more chances than she had. She wants to pay taxes and help, but shrugs that those who receive think it’s never enough—resentment, not gratitude is their more appropriate response for government help. And she assumes that Hillary and Barak (sic), given what they make, don’t much care whether they pay a few thousand dollars more in their own taxes, and that they, like a John Edwards or John Kerry or Al Gore or Ted Kennedy, are rich enough to feel everyone else’s pain but her own.

Read the whole thing.

In case you missed it, here’s Hillary’s 3:00 AM telephone commercial.

0:30 video

Obama’s less-than-devastating response.

0:31 video

OK, we now know Obama is ready: ready to disarm, ready to withdraw, ready to surrender, even at 3:00 AM.

And what exactly was the experience Hillary had as First Lady that qualifies her?

Hotline On Call (including sound):

Slate’s John Dickerson asked the obvious question:

“What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” he said.

Silence on the call. You could’ve knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton’s national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak — that she’s been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.

Matt Yglesias experiences a moment of satori, and suddenly understands why conservatives are not very happy about having John McCain as GOP standard-bearer.

Having heard this, I think it seems somewhat obvious in retrospect, but I met a smart conservative thinker last night who explained to me the conservative base’s fear about John McCain in understandable terms for the first time. Basically, McCain or no McCain this still looks like a bad year for the GOP. If he wins, it’s likely to be a personal win based on his persona and tarnishing Obama’s persona, in which the Democrats still pick up some House and Senate seats. Next up, it’s governing time. McCain’s not someone who enjoys a strong personal or professional relationship with John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, and he doesn’t owe any great debt to the GOP activist base. Under the circumstances, it’s plausible to imagine him striking a bunch of compromises with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on domestic issue in order to get a freer hand with which to conduct foreign policy.

That does seem plausible to me.

I think Susan Estrich‘s prediction is dead on.

A funny thing is about to happen to Barack Obama. No matter how much he thinks he’s ready for it, he isn’t. No matter how many people warn him, he’ll be surprised. And hurt. And angry.

His friends in the press are about to turn on him.

They may not even know it yet, but they will.

They can’t help themselves. They’ve been caught fawning, made fun of for favoritism, become the subject of their own scrutiny.

Which means they won’t be able to resist.

There’s an old parable about a scorpion that asks a frog to carry him across the lake. The frog is afraid of being stung. The scorpion assures him not to worry, that if he stings the frog, they’ll both drown. Of course, halfway across, that’s exactly what he does. “But why?” the frog asks, as both face death. The scorpion’s answer: I can’t help it. It’s my nature.

It’s the press’s nature to turn on those they most adore. The bigger the buildup, the bigger the letdown. Watch the balloon fill with air. Watch them start pricking holes. Watch the balloon lose air. Wait to see if there’s still a balloon at all in the end.

Mark my words. It’s about to begin.

Read the whole thing.

After Goldwater and Reagan, even liberal Republicans describe themselves “Proud Conservative Republicans,” but sometimes liberals slip up and reveal the truth: They are Proud Conservative Liberal Republicans.

1:21 video

Andrew Sullivan thinks the democrats have arrived at the moment in the horror film when the evil monster has been killed and the audience breathes a sigh of relief, but…

We’re at that moment in the campaign that reminds me of a horror movie. There’s a kind of relief that the worst cannot happen, that the Clintons are politically dead, that our long national nightmare is over. The screen falls silent. We look at pleasant images: green grass, or a kitchen table scene, or a calm lovers’ embrace. But you know they have something left. They could come suddenly screaming back, like that hand out of the grave in Carrie or Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction. An Edwards endorsement? A March surprise?

Like Freddy or Jason, they still lurk, ready to pounce again. And the credits are yet to roll. Gulp.

Here is a democrat web-site focused on a goal I can support.