Yes. Ann Coulter came out in support of Clinton enthusiastically and yet sort of. The premise seems to be that McCain is so liberal, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than he is.
I tend to think that much of her spewing is an act, and I don’t believe even she believes all the crap she says. But one thing she’s not known for is backpedaling. Yet, how long can that last if it really does come down to Hillary vs. McCain? It seems more likely that she’s pulling this stunt to try and boost Romney’s numbers ahead of Super Tuesday. Yet, if the issue is conservatism, Romney has some pretty shaky credentials, too. And although McCain was seen as fairly centrist in the run up to 2000, I seem to recall people on Le Dope pointing out that he is a lot more conservative than he’s given credit for. And he’s certainly been tacking to the right since 2000 and even sucking up the Evangelical voters and singing “bomb Iran.” Of course, I seem to recall Clinton getting a bit hawkish on Iran before the 2006 midterms suggested that voters didn’t want more war.
Clinton is still pretty hawkish on Iran. One of the main foreign policy differences between her and Obama is that she has stated that she would never even talk to Iranian or North Korean leaders, while Obama said that he would.
And of course Ann Coulter doesn’t really support Clinton. This is the real world, where crazy aggressive people stay crazy and aggressive. My bet is what you’re thinking; she’s trying to boost Romney’s numbers. Any social ultra-conservative would want Romney over McCain, but it’s the social moderates and war hawks that are keeping McCain’s campaign strong.
I’m a conservative who gave up reading Coulter a long time ago. I’m pretty sure her sole guiding principle is to write things that will attract attention. I don’t think there’s a coherent political philosophy behind what she writes.
That is not correct. She said she would not commit, up front, to talk to them personally in the first year (or some timeframe) of her administration. Obama actually slipped up on that question, and Hillary gave the right answer.
Perhaps Coulter is banking on the fact that an endorsement from her is one of the worst things that can happen to a candidate. After all, she endorsed Romney and look what happened to him.
I was under the impression that the serious right wingers hate McCain and as he looks more and more likely as the GOP candidate Clinton is considered a better alternative.
While she may be trying to undermine a Clinton candidacy (anything is possible with Coulter), she may actually think a McCain presidency would be a disaster, and if we’re going to have a disaster, it might as well be under a Democratic administration. Of course that begs the question about the disaster of the Bush administration, but maybe by some twisted form of Coulter-logic, it isn’t a disaster.
Still, I don’t think Coulter believes half of what she spews out, but is just going after the low road, which happens also to be the easiest source of income.
Since this thread is really about McCain in a meta sense, two more data points:
James Dobson: “I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative…Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life.”
Rush Limbaugh: ““If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle,” he said. “And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative.””