By John W. Lillpop

When the political process for the 2008 elections began in 2007, the Democrats appeared to have two formidable candidates in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both had strong support among Democrat voters, and each was seen as a likely victor against whomever the Republicans might offer as their human sacrifice in the 2008 election.

Back in April of 2007, the only questions seemed to be, “How completely will the Democrat candidate demolish the GOP rival?” and “How many additional seats in the US House and Senate will the Democrat tsunami wash into power?”

But after more than a year of mudslinging and negative campaign tactics by the Democrats, Richard Nixon’s infamous dirty tricks team of 1972 appears mild and overly polite by comparison.

As a result, the Democrat Party and it’s candidates have spent hundreds of millions of increasingly worthless America dollars to wean out the unworthy in order to answer this burning question:

Which of the candidates, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, is the least “unelectable” come November?

At this point, it seems obvious that both candidates are badly flawed and have the battle scars to prove it!

Barack Obama is inexperienced and naive, at best. At worse, his inexplicable patronage of the outrageous Reverend Jeremiah Wright for nearly 20 years suggests a deeply flawed values and judgment capability, which is incompatible with serving as America’s CEO and commander-in-chief.

For her part, Hillary Clinton has given credence to those who portray her as a ruthless schemer who is quite capable of generating impromptu lies as need to score political points. Her disapproval ratings hover near 50 percent, which proves once again that you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Our founding fathers must surely be rolling over in their graves when reflecting on the fact that so much time and money has been spent, and will be spent, to decide which Democrat is the least unelectable!

For optimistic conservatives, the obvious answer is: Both of the above!