A while back I argued that trade policy would be better under Hillary than Obama:

My assumption is that neither candidate would actively promote free trade, so the greater evil is the candidate who can “get things done.” Given Obama’s winning personality, and Hillary’s divisiveness, I’m fairly confident that Hillary would do less harm. She may want moderately worse policies, but she’d have a lot more trouble getting others to go along with her. (In fact, I suspect that most Republican protectionists would start defending NAFTA just to spite her!) At minimum, Obama would have a one-year honeymoon period to do harm; Hillary would be lucky if her honeymoon lasted a week.

Now seems like a good time to generalize my argument. In terms of policy, Hillary and Obama look extremely similar to me; I prefer either to McCain because I think they’re more likely to get the U.S. out of Iraq. But Hillary worries me a lot less than Obama because leaving Iraq is likely to be her only major political success. Hillary has a built-in army of enemies, and she’s making more enemies every day. (I’ve talked to Obama supporters who hate her more than Rush Limbaugh does!) Obama, in contrast, is genuinely likeable. At least during his honeymoon period, he might be able to unite the country behind a long list of “progressive” reforms. And that’s what makes him dangerous to liberty.

In short, people who hate Hillary’s (domestic) policies should hope that Hillary beats Obama, because he’s a lot more likely to deliver on her promises than she is.