I'm one that enjoys shunning the conventional wisdom. Throughout the Democrat Primary, a debate raged amongst Republicans about whether Barack or Hillary was the weaker General Election candidate. I went back and forth on the issue, and settled on Obama. Now, many of my blogging colleagues are agreeing. Russ from Right Up Front takes on Obama:

As the Democrat primary unfolds, Republicans have more and more reason to be hopeful about our general election prospects this year. And where I once prayed for a Hillary nomination to improve our chances, I am now comfortable that we can beat either Madame Shrill and even the Messiah, himself. Frankly, I am even more hopeful about a win against Obama. Why you ask?

Well, how many of you would elect your state senator to be president? This is ultimately what Barack Obama, whose tenure as an Illinois state senator far exceeds his national experience. His few short years in office have yielded no major legislative accomplishments and a mere three bills have managed to pass the muster of the Senate with his name on it. He only authored one of them. Raise your hand if you've heard of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act.

Not many of Barack's supporters know about the Democratic Republic of the Congro Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act obviously, or else they would've mentioned it when faced with the "Name One Game" that became so popular. Obama's legislative record is not as much bad as it is non-existent. Whether we face Barack or Hillary come November, we're facing a far-left liberal with no real record of achievement.