There are some conservatives who have made it their primary mission between now and November 2008 to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency. Not so with this conservative. As a matter of fact, I consider Hillary Clinton the lesser of several evils.

Sure, she's bound and determined to impose her unpopular socialistic ideas on health care on the American people, she'd likely continue to pursue an utterly non-coherent defense policy, and she is one of the coldest, most calculating, and most ambitious operators in contemporary American politics. But in the substantial field of candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination, all of whom take their marching orders directly from MoveOn.org, Hillary Clinton is at least a known commodity with a history of political expediency and pragmatism. Call her my "least unfavorite" of the bunch.

In 1994, then-president Bill Clinton named his wife Hillary to head up his attempt to reform health care policy. The government-run system she proposed, in essence nationalizing the health industry, was pronounced "dead on arrival" even by fellow Democrats. Republicans in Congress harshly (and rightly) criticized her proposal as a dangerous scheme that would significantly decrease the quality of health care enjoyed by all Americans. One need only look at the poor performance of other countries' socialized health care systems to understand why such a system would be a disaster in this country. In Britain, patients must wait in line for days to see a doctor or undergo needed surgeries. Canadians routinely cross the border into the U.S. to see more qualified physicians who are allowed to earn what their expertise is worth. The only successes proponents of nationalized health care can point to are the marginally lower prices of prescription medications in such countries. However, this nominal benefit is only achieved at the cost of government price controls, which severely reduce the pharmaceutical companies' incentive to develop life-saving drugs.

This is what Hillary Clinton wants for you and your family: inefficient, sub-standard health care for "all Americans."

The former first lady has remained largely steadfast on her desire to wreck our health care system, but she has not remained steadfast on other issues. During her time in the White House through her husband's administration, Hillary learned the value of frequently gathering polling data and setting policy according to whichever way the political wind was blowing that week. While that meant always falling on the popular side of the issues, it also meant that policy set today might be abandoned for the exact opposite direction at any moment.

We've already seen Hillary Clinton's resolve vacillate from hawk to dove when it comes to the war on terror since her election to the Senate in 2000. Torn between the anti-war sentiments of her base and the need to appear strong on defense as a woman with presidential ambitions, Hillary's stance on the war in Iraq and support of the military has been all over the place. She voted to authorize the war, but has since expressed regret over that vote (though stopping short of calling it a "mistake" as her critics on the left demand). As public support for the war effort has waned, she's become increasingly anti-war. But, she never misses an opportunity to remind voters she is a tough girl; when President Bush's recent troop surge in Iraq began showing early signs of success, Hillary promptly announced that she would keep troops in Iraq should she be elected. This is the same candidate who weeks earlier promised to pull the troops out if Bush did not do so by the time he leaves office.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is full of dangerous ideas for America. Despite the popularity of her closest rivals, Barrack Obama and John Edwards, she maintains a lead in the polls. This makes her the primary target for most conservatives already fighting for the 2008 election. However, since Hillary Clinton has already proven a desire to lead via polling data she may be a more attractive candidate to be stuck with than her rivals. While her style of "leadership" lacks fortitude and courage, it is guaranteed to be nominally popular. In essence, it is a weak form of pragmatism, but at least it is a form that may prove itself to be right some of the time depending on which way the political wind is blowing.

Right now, that wind is blowing to the left, so Hillary is presenting herself accordingly. But unlike her Democratic rivals for the nomination, Hillary wants the presidency so badly that she will say and do anything to get it. In some ways, this makes her the worst person we could hope to win the White House. However, considering the monolithic field of Democrats vying for the nomination, Hillary appears to be the one with the least backbone. She doesn't want to make tough decisions; she wants to make popular ones.

When I see her lined up next to the usual Democrat suspects, all of whom are determined, hard-line, anti-war leftists, Hillary Clinton's lukewarm liberalism becomes more palatable by the minute.