I've noticed quite a few Libertarians lately expressing sympathy for Barack Obama.
A couple of examples: Over at Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo argues that the peace issue outweighs all others:
"In an emergency, it is necessary to focus on the immediate issue at hand: if your car is parked on the railroad tracks, and the train is barreling toward you, everything else must be put aside in the interest of survival. There's no time to think of the fate of the car, which you still owe money on, or whether your insurance will cover the damage. There's certainly no time to make a phone call, or to finish listening to your favorite song on the car radio. You must instead focus on the immediate priority, which is hightailing it to safety.
"That is the situation we face today."
It wouldn't be a Justin Raimondo post if it didn't have a moment of looniness; this time, he claims, apparently with a straight face, that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, "the Internet will be reined in." Still, his column is mostly reasonable and well-argued and worth reading in full.
Reason magazine's blog recently ran a post about Freedom Newspapers CEO Scott Flanders endorsing Obama: "Flanders reasoned that Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal, 2) restoring the separation of church and state; 3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use; 4) curtailing the Patriot Act."
Not a bad argument. I'd like to see the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, win this fall, although I also hope the Libertarian Party will come up with a reasonable candidate.