If you’re Ann Coulter, you live in a dream world—a world where it’s OK to call Christians “perfected Jews” and to refer to John Edwards as a “faggot.” It’s also a world where Hillary Clinton is more conservative than John McCain. Yes, you read that correctly.

“If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he’s our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she’s more conservative than he is,” Coulter said last week on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes.” “I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism.”

Now I’m no Clinton supporter—my affiliation with Students for Obama says otherwise—but are you serious? According to Coulter, McCain and Clinton aren’t radically different on the issues and she is even prepared to campaign for Clinton if McCain wins the Republican nomination. If that somehow does happen, I urge Clinton, or any Democrat, to throw that endorsement right back in her face.

Here’s the real problem with McCain though: As a Democrat, he scares the hell out of me. Since this election cycle began—which was what, three years ago?—many assumed a Democrat would regain the White House. However, McCain could pose a serious threat in November, and after Tuesday, that threat is very real.

As we saw in New Hampshire, McCain has significant crossover appeal. Many independents and some Democrats like him and would vote for him. According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, McCain’s favorable rating is 56 percent, and his unfavorable is just 32 percent. In comparison, Romney’s numbers are 37/39, Clinton’s are 48/48 and Obama’s are 59/32. In general election matchups, McCain is the only Republican who comes close to either of the Democrats, even beating them in some polls.

This all comes down to McCain’s reputation. During his time in the Senate, McCain, a genuine war hero, has been thought of as a maverick, willing to work across party lines—a politician who votes with conviction, much like our own Sen. Russ Feingold. Voters hear this and rightfully conclude McCain is the only candidate who could seriously contend with the Democrats in the general election. What doesn’t seem to matter is that none of this is true anymore.

Although McCain was a maverick for many years, times have changed since he decided to run for president. He now opposes a key provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which he co-sponsored with Feingold. He said recently he wouldn’t sign his own immigration bill, McCain-Kennedy, if it were brought to him as president. He opposed the Bush tax cuts but now supports them. And he opposed the repeal of Roe v. Wade but changed positions on that, too.

By pandering to the right, you’d think McCain would lose votes, but that hasn’t been the case. According to New Hampshire exit polls, 36 percent of Republican primary voters oppose the Iraq war and 44 percent of those people voted for McCain, the candidate who has said we could be in Iraq for another 100 years.

The disparity is mind-boggling and shows one of two things: Either voters are really stupid, or they just don’t care that much about the issues, choosing instead to vote for the candidate they trust the most, which is McCain.

So why, if it’s clear that McCain is the only candidate able to beat Democrats in November, is the far-right so dissatisfied with him? That I can’t answer. Perhaps it’s a ploy to make Democrats think they’re scared of a Clinton candidacy and not an Obama one. Then again, nothing the far-right does makes sense to me, so perhaps I shouldn’t try to make sense of it.

I just hope Coulter’s candidate, Mitt Romney, wins the nomination. I’m sure her conservative values will be much better represented when he loses in a landslide.

Erik Opsal is a senior majoring in journalism and political science. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com