|
because I felt his campaign managers and volunteers took Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy to heart better than Clinton's campaign did - the latter seems to pay that concept mere lip service.
I've met her up close and personal at a fundraiser back in 2000. Up close, she really is not the cold fish as portrayed by the MSM - she really is affable and listens to what you want to say.
Her campaign management on the national level is another story. IMO they're the same old same old that rely too much on high-paid consultants, big-money donors, high-priced TV ads,no flesh-and-blood boots on the ground - and writing off states they feel they can't win in. Those tactics are what got our asses kicked in 2000, 2002 and 2004, and only stopped when Howard Dean took over from Terry McAuliffe and started us back on the winning track in 2006.
Would I vote for her in 2012? it really depends on some things: 1) her Republikkkan opponent 2)if she is primaried by an opponent who I feel can really win in the general election 3) if that Democratic primary opponent runs his/her campaign on 50-State Strategy principles and goes into every district, every county, etc.
Of course, if the Republikkkan is just another fascist puke, it's no contest. I'd vote for Clinton - I could do a whole lot worse.
All that said, I do not think Obama should have her on the ticket as a VP: 1) Too much distraction 2) She and Bill would become back-seat drivers, both in the campaign and in governing at the WH. There would be that temptation to play POTUS when she really is not. The Constitution provides for only 1 President and only 1 Vice-President - don't EVER forget that
Frankly, I'd rather see her remain in the Senate - and become the next Senator Ted Kennedy.
:kick::kick:
|