He’s already preparing:

This guy really showed an affinity for Marxist professors in college and law school. He’s the most liberal Democrat candidate in decades … perhaps ever.

First, do our colleges and law schools have anything but Marxist professors? Obama is clearly to the right of Hillary on command and control economic issues.

And the most liberal Democrat ever? Not when you’re talking about a roster that includes Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis. Give me a break.

Today, Boortz is one the “what has he ever done” message. This seems strange for someone so enamored of Bush.

But I do understand his frustration here:

Driving away from the studios yesterday I tool a back route to avoid traffic. On one busy street corner I noticed a group of women waving Hillary signs. Sorry … but all I could do was stare at these women in absolute amazement. Who are these people? Who are these women that would actually vote for this dishonest and mean woman for president? Do these women all want to surrender the responsibilities for their lives to government? Do they really fear freedom that much? Do they really admire a woman who withstood the serial infidelities of her husband in order to preserve her position of power? Do they admire liars? Are they fans of sham marriages? Are their marriages shams also? Or … is it possible they just don’t have a clue what the hell they are working for?

All I can do is just drive by and stare .. stare in absolute amazement.

I feel the same way. To me, Obama is so obviously a better candidate — hell, even I could vote for him — that the support for the divisive, nasty, statist Clinton baffles me. I guess someone people want that in a President. After all, we just enjoyed seven years of it.

From Taranto:

But some conservatives still hope for a Romney comeback. Blogger Josh Treviño manfully makes a case that Romney actually won Florida, referring to exit-poll numbers (the CNN link didn’t work for us, so we’re going with MSNBC instead) that found the following:

Romney won pro-lifers.
Romney won the mainstream religious. (Huckabee won the very religious–less than one-fifth of the pool.)
Romney won the Protestants.
Romney tied Huckabee with Evangelicals.
Romney won the pro-GWB voters.
Romney is the primary second choice of Giuliani voters, Thompson voters . . . and McCain voters.
Romney won the immigration hard-liners.
Romney won the upper-middle class, earning between $100,000 and $200,000 annually.
Romney won the terrorism-oriented voters.
Romney won the self-identified conservatives and the self-identified very conservative.
Romney won the values-oriented voters.
Romney won the white voters.
Romney won the tax-cutting voters.

It seems the only group of voters McCain won was . . . the voters.

Since when is white, religious and rich conservative? Oh, yeah.

This is hilarious (I think) and expresses a lot of what Cowboys fans are feeling right now (note: I’m not one; but rewrite this to rant and rave about the Packers and you’ll have my emotions from the last week).

The clip, by the way, is taken from Der Untergang, which is an outstanding, if brutal, movie.

Was driving around today and heard both Boortz and Limbaugh yammering about about how McCain isn’t a conservative, McCain is a liberal, McCain is the media’s choice, McCain this, McCain that. Waa waa waa. Of course, it’s odd to hear a pro-life, pro-war, federalist fiscal conservative with a lifetime ACU rating of 83 called a liberal.

There are two reasons talk radio is so harsh on McCain and neither has anything to do with “amnesty” or McCain-Feingold. Many of these guys worship Bush, who supports both policies. No, it comes down to this:

1) If McCain is the nominee, it will be a huge blow to talk radio. When McCain’s numbers tanked last year, the talk radio show host boasted that they’d killed him. If he is the nominee now, that means they have a lot less influence than they think.

2) They don’t like the company McCain keeps. He works with Democrats — although not to raise taxes or blow up spending, like the good conservative Bushes have. He is endorsed by the NYT. He appears on The Daily Show. As far as they’re concerned, that’s one step away from singing Koom Baya with Michael Moore. Conservatism is often defined more by the people conservatives don’t like (Hollywood celebrities, MSM, hippies) than what they do like.

It seems like yesterday:

Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST — NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN

BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT

**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president’s sexual preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last month.

The young intern wrote long love letters to President Clinton, which she delivered through a delivery service. She was a frequent visitor at the White House after midnight, where she checked in the WAVE logs as visiting a secretary named Betty Curry, 57.

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that tapes of intimate phone conversations exist.

The relationship between the president and the young woman become strained when the president believed that the young woman was bragging about the affair to others.

NEWSWEEK and Isikoff were planning to name the woman. Word of the story’s impeding release caused blind chaos in media circles; TIME magazine spent Saturday scrambling for its own version of the story, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The NEW YORK POST on Sunday was set to front the young intern’s affair, but was forced to fall back on the dated ABC NEWS Kathleen Willey break.

The story was set to break just hours after President Clinton testified in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

Ironically, several years ago, it was Isikoff that found himself in a shouting match with editors who were refusing to publish even a portion of his meticulously researched investigative report that was to break Paula Jones. Isikoff worked for the WASHINGTON POST at the time, and left shortly after the incident to build them for the paper’s sister magazine, NEWSWEEK.

Michael Isikoff was not available for comment late Saturday. NEWSWEEK was on voice mail.

The White House was busy checking the DRUDGE REPORT for details.

Thanks to Taranto for the link.

I was in Santiago, Chile when this story broke. The Chileans thought, in the way that only South Americans can, that this was the best story to emerge from America ever. Everywhere I went, people would spot me for a gringo (not very difficult) and say, “President Clinton!” and make gestures.

At the time, I thought it was more amusing than destructive. But gradually, my support for impeachment firmed up. What got me on the pro-impeachment side was, ironically, a diatribe by James Carville. He essentially said that Paula Jones was trailer park trash who didn’t deserve fair trial because Bill Clinton was God-damned President of the United States. And the more the libs rallied behind the “Clinton is above the law; Paula Jones is scum” line, the more my support waxed.

Paula Jones was trailer park trash. She still had a right to her day in court. In retrospect, the impeachment battle probably wasn’t worth it.

But God, was it fun.

One last thought. Bill Clinton loves to rant and rave about the “politics of personal destruction”. But until it was discovered that Monica had a stained dress, the Clintonista line was that Monica was a lying psycho stalker. As she said about his biography.

He could have made it right with the book, but he hasn’t. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied. (…) I really didn’t expect him to go into detail about our relationship (…) But if he had and he’d done it honestly, I wouldn’t have minded…. I did, though, at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the Presidency. Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn’t resist the dessert. (…) That’s not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. … I don’t accept that he had to completely desecrate my character.

Neither do I, Mon.