I don’t trust Barack Obama. His stump speech tells Americans that we can rise above our differences. He says that politics does not have to be a fight. Instead, we can just sit down and talk out our problems. And if I just have the audacity to hope, then no dilemma is without a solution. If that is what he really thinks, he is just being naive and he will be an ineffectual president.

Of course the American people are tired of being divided. Of course we’re tired of “partisan roadblocks” and “ideological walls.” After all, it’s really annoying when people disagree with you. And it’s really annoying when the Republicans in Congress stop Democrats from doing what they want. I, too, wish conservatives would just see the light, admit how wrong they have been, and assist us in enacting a glorious liberal agenda in which healthcare will be provided to all and cars will run on sunshine.

But that is not going to happen. Partisanship exists because people disagree. And as long as people disagree, the politicians who represent them are going to disagree. Obama presents the liberal palette of ideas as if it were so nakedly obvious that if someone just sat down with conservatives and explained it to them in stentorian tones, they would be struck dumb by the truth.

In reality, there is a chasm of uncertainty surrounding every proposal he makes. Will withdrawing from Iraq make us safer? Can we achieve universal healthcare at a reasonable cost without decreasing quality of care? Can we close the budget deficit, while increasing spending, without increasing the tax burden on the poor and middle class? And will more government programs actually solve problems like global warming and educational shortcomings?

I happen to think that the answer to these questions is “yes.” But a reasonable person could make a fairly decent argument that Barack and I are wrong. And if that reasonable person happened to be in the Senate, then he would be honor-bound to oppose Obama’s policies.

What would Obama do when faced with resolute senators determined to hold up his bills in committee and filibuster them when they reach the floor? Would he wring his hands at how they’re just practicing the old politics of division, and refuse to get in the gutter with his opponents and fight back? Or would he have the courage to destroy someone, a good person who honestly thought he was doing what was right, just because that person disagreed with him?

Can we really have a president who believes that “it’s possible to compromise so long as you never compromise your principles?” That’s bull. In politics, you have to sell your principles at cut-rate prices in order to enact even a fraction of what you believe is right.

Both Democratic candidates have almost the same policies and beliefs. Basically, they only differ on their vision for how to enact those policies. Where Obama sells persuasion, Clinton is shilling the same old political maneuvering. And I agree, those politics are ugly. Dirty deals are made; people get slandered; unethical corporations receive giveaways; and three hundred million dollar bridges in Alaska are built. But those politics get things done. The New Deal, civil rights legislation and the Great Society were all opposed by large sections of Congress. They all came about through back-door maneuvering and naked power plays by the president.

It is entirely possible that the Democratic party will find itself in possession of both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency, on January 20, 2009. But the Republican minority will still have a significant amount of power to block the Democratic agenda. And they will do so, both because they believe in what they are doing and because any victory for the Democrats is a loss for them. Furthermore, the Democratic party is renowned for squabbling. It is possible that when we are in the majority, we’ll be our own worst enemy. We need a president who is willing to shove his opponents out of the halls of power using exactly the same tactics that Bush has been turning on the Democrats for eight years. We need a president who will use brutal tactics to enforce party conformity.

Our president should be someone who doesn’t need to rely on flowing rhetoric to accomplish her aims. She should be so certain that what she is doing is right that she is willing to knock the opposition to the ground, and then kick them when they’re down.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not. Over the next two months Hillary Clinton is going to systematically destroy Barack Obama. Email Rahul at rahkan@stanford.edu.