The question is, when there is no single presidential candidate that particularly excites you, for whom should you vote? Besides the obvious anti-life consequences of electing a Hillary or an Obama, John McCain doesn’t get me too excited. I think his strongest point would be his foreign policy, but here he is on life issues. (Here’s Clinton and here’s Obama. If you can’t protect the most vulnerable, I have my doubts about everything else.) But say that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama was elected president. What could either of them do that could not be undone by a future president? There is only one issue I can think of that would have such far-reaching consequences that it would be worth worrying about extensively, and that is the issue of the Supreme Court. Even ignoring all their other deficiencies (such as Obama’s 100+ days of experience and Clinton’s socialism), both Clinton and Obama would have pro-death litmus tests for Supreme Court justices, of which there will be at least one, and maybe two, nominated during the next presidential term. Here is McCain on judicial nominees.
The question is, do you want Obama, Clinton, or McCain making that choice? Everything else is reversible. Supreme Court justices serve for life. Pres. Bush’s lasting legacy will clearly be connected to Iraq, but domestically it is his Supreme Court nominations that will determine what sort of country we have.