The Good? Hardly.

The empty-headed recitation of the phrase by McCain acolytes, "perfection is the enemy of the good" is, to be blunt, maddening. 

A. The quote is "the best is the enemy of good", so if the McCain apologists are going to quote Voltaire, they should at least do it right.

B. I would instead argue that "the adequate is the enemy of the excellent". I would also maintain that McCain does not even rise to the level of "marginal" much less "adequate".

C. Since when is McCain "the good" and since when were conservatives looking for "the perfect"? People who claim that either of these are the case are sophists. McCain is "the bad" and conservatives would have been perfectly happy to settle for "the good" (c.f. Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney).

D. The issue of the SCOTUS is routinely raised by McCain fanbois as the sine qua non argument. Ragnar demonstrates that it is a feeble posit. One can certainly argue that there is a remote possibility that McCain would nominate someone to replace, say Ginsburg who is less liberal but past experience informs us that 1.) a nominee in the mold of Ginsburg would be a requirement of the MSM, and the Dems in the Senate would allow no other choice no matter what, and 2.) above all, McCain loves good press. Since he has no principles beyond what makes him look good, just exactly what evidence do we have that he wouldn't nominate Hillary herself? Absolutely none. Nominating Hillary Clinton would give McCain exactly what he always goes for: Maverick glory status.

When people say, "McCain is not perfect but..." I tune that person out as an unserious commenter. McCain doesn't even merit a "mediocre" rating. 

At the end of the day, McCain has zero redeeming qualities, which actually puts Hillary a point or two above him. At least she is consistent and principled (in her devotion to all things Leninist.) Meanwhile, McCain's only real devotion is to McCain, on all other issues, he is entirely unpredictable and so it would be with the SCOTUS.