Reply #16: NO. And here's why: [View All]

Given the stark differences, in what the two campaigns stand for (Change vs. Beltway), I'd say it would be a counter-productive match. Strength or no, we are left with the same potential outcome as it would have been had she been in Barak's current position. It would still be a oil and water marriage.

Pragmatically, from a governing perspective, it could depend upon what Barak believes that he can get accomplished w/o the DLC. So he may defer in the end, to pragmatism. Personally, I'd like to run the DLC bastards into the ground. They're nothing but empty suits. But in the end, that's what this question will come down to. And Barak runs the risk of discovering as Bill Clinton did, that its sometimes easier to get elected than to govern with a recalcitrant Congress.

But Barak would also have to convince this huge following and consensus of new people he's created and who are coming into the depths of the political process for the first time, that this is necessary. Being novices to the process, I think the younger folks would have a greater difficulty accepting her and could see such a move as a betrayal. And he'll need that youth and energy to make the changes that are needed.

Had Hillary run a more conventional campaign (meaning on the issues), it wouldn't be such a stretch. But her scorched-earth campaign cannot be now discounted. Nor can the Clinton legacy be overlooked as a negative. A legacy that has shown itself to be merely another opportunistic reign that ended up being a means for personal enrichment rather than having made any truly substantive changes that benefited the country. NAFTA doesn't count.

So I make the same argument now as was being made by the Hillary folks before, they wondered out loud if Obama was "electable," and I ask: is Hillary more of a strain on a GE campaign, offering more openings for Mc Lame and others to pick him apart for choosing her, rather than to pick someone of proven ability and experience? Real experiences, not the photo-ops and made-up crap. Someone who would provide the balance that many defecting Repukes and the Indies will respect and support?

Again, personally I think that experience is overrated. It is all well and good to have some, but it is just an indicator that a person has memories of what worked and what didn't. And it shows that a person can withstand the pressures and strains of high-level decision making and office. That's the good part. But experience alone won't cut it anymore. Not for where this country needs to go. Experience can be a greater drag than a benefit when it is time to make a CHANGE in direction. And that's what we need right now.

Hillary's ties to the corporacracy, and the DLC are the very ones who would be resistant to change and in particular since THEY ARE WHAT NEEDS CHANGING. And so somehow I can't believe that she'd be committed and loyal to such a platform. She would have to effectively turn her back upon the very entities that got her this far. And that have already enriched she and her husband. So I don't think she can be trusted with such a commitment, given what she already owes to others.

And I'm not prepared to provide a means for Bill to get any closer to the WH, except as a tourist. He's done enough damage to the Party.