Hard situations lend themselves to hard lessons, and that leads me to your very good point about independence.

My feeling is that Hillary is not, in fact, Bill. (That’s not meant to be a blinding flash of the obvious.) Let me explain.

Watching how known and trusted associates respond to changes in a relationship’s balance of power and division of responsibilities is one good way to shake out who’s adjusting, and who isn’t. When someone argues with my spouse, it’s very clear that they are not arguing with me: we are different people. A mutual commitment did not make us identical. I suspect the advisors are exploring that difference. I’m very sure that the Clintons themselves are.

The searing experiences, personal, political, and professional, that she endured, largely on his account, will have hardened her character. The judgments on her responses, many gender- and age-specific, happened to her. Not to him.

I think Hillary and Obama need each other’s strengths. How that should be expressed in terms of job assignments is what I want to examine next. I can do this in two questions:

1. What does the President of the United States do that is unique to the office?

2. What is required of the character, heart, and mind of the person who feels called to live that job? (Not entitled to it, but called to it.)

Some ideas on #1: If the unique responsibility is setting the tone of the Administration and being the face of American character, Obama has the edge; he inspires. If I need a leader, I need to be inspired.

If the unique responsibility is bringing a rogue government back to its Constitutional principles, Clinton may be the one; she’s demonstrably got the discipline.

However, I just finished a very provocative book on hiring people, called First, Break All the Rules. The point of the book: hire people for aptitude. Jobs are not reliably “replays” of prior experiences due to the changes in the circumstances and all the independent variables involved. “Experience” does not count, argues the author, as much as “Aptitude”–the ability to learn faster than the competition. That skill is the only strategic advantage that persists.

How could you, really be “experienced” at a job you simply haven’t had? You can’t be. I fault the campaign messaging, here. However, your knowledge, skills, and abilities–the holy trinity of HR people everywhere–are what should get you the job.

I’d like to think that whatever the outcome, some kind of alliance could be formed between them. The “loser” won’t cease to be significant just because only one can hold the topmost role.

It seems it’s viewed as a game, by some, not life and death, a complete lack of respect for the agencies that PROTECT this country. It isn’t a slam dunk, it would appear to be very real work, the US has enemies, PNAC’s vision of a safe empire was always false. Unfortunately, they believed their own reality, and harmed US defense, that group of stupid corrupt neocon cowards.

It wasn’t OK to out Plame, it isn’t OK to commit treason, we have a government we must respect, despite our political differences, we don’t run our own little wars, outside of Congress, IMO, anyway.

And I guess all organizations are made of people from different political persuasions, the WW2 Roosevelt supporter was a liberal fighter, as was Kennedy, nothing new under the sun, one would expect that tradition to follow.

I read various blogs, this is what I picked up, it’s probably not accurate, JMO.

It’s interesting to me that you discount Obama for what you see as his similarities to Bush. On the other hand, I’m appalled by what I see as Clinton’s similarities to Bush: pro-war, pro-imperialism, anti-constitution, anti-accountability

No, actually, you’re wrong.

What it come down to is Obama’s level of corruption, and with whom.

On that matter,he is just like Bush, Clinton not quite as much.

I agree. More specifically bin Laden and Al Qaeda killed those people

.

But the more we look at that, the more we see men LIKE Auchi involved with both a group like Al Qaeda, and politicians like Obama.

Why?

Why are American politicians dealing with these middle men?

Her family was excoriated in ways we can only imagine, and it would be my guess she FELT it, and coped, very well, just like her daughter, GREW from the experience, as opposed to becoming embittered, and that should tell us all a lot.

I simply don’t see this in the simpering, whiny, racist, sexist shell, Obama.

I agree, she is a consummate politician. But so is Obama, his claims to the contrary

It is my belief, though, she is proving right now she can play with the big boys, they’ll give her grief, but at least they’ll see her as a player.

Obama, on the other hand, is a shill. Just watching his face every time he finishes with another faux Bush type propaganda orchestrated oratory technique tells me everything I need to know about his shrill, contemptful, specious, lightweight intellect, a fish who can’t make it in the political swim of the toxic tank, but yet thinks he’s Jesus, too stupid to GET it, because he really thinks he’s better than the rest.

Who thinks Obama is tough, he’s nothing but a prissy little mouse, the cats are simply batting him around.

#2) Sounds smart to me, especially since the UN resolutions included provisions for bombing. A shame we hit a Chinese embassy by mistake. Perhaps we should have sent in more spies.

I am a little bit on the fence in terms of the Imperialism question, frankly. Every country (at least the semi-stable ones) looks out for their own interests. I certainly see Baer’s point about how we used and abused arabs when it came to oil production. Christ, it appears as though a ridiculously small amount of money (we’re talking less than a million per year!) would have rendered al Queda and their schools impotent. If we took a “leave it better than I found it” approach, we’d have a lot more good will coming our way and probably better business opportunities. But I’m about to get on my soapbox about radical libertarianism again and how it works against its own self-interests…

On the other hand, I think we’d have alternative fuels right now if we really wanted them and wouldn’t be needing to continue the foolish fights in the desert. Somehow, I think it’s as much to do with seeing our opponents lose (China, Russia, India, perhaps France and/or the EU) than it is about us ‘winning.’

#3) We all know how ridiculous the horse-trading is when it comes to bills. “How could you vote against a law called the Patriot Act? What are you, un-Mer’can? Comminist?”

#4) I think any rational person knows that as a woman, unfortunate as this is, she’d be chucked into the pile of Dukakis, Carter and Mondale, ie, weak, if she didn’t constantly remind everyone that she is willing to use force. For God’s sake, Kerry tried hunting to try to prove he was tough, and he was Nam vet. Didn’t work. Dems have to live down the “weak” Carter administration to this day (just ask my dad… that’s why he continually votes GOP…).

I agree, she is a consummate politician. But so is Obama, his claims to the contrary.

Terrorism murdered over 4,000 Americans on Sept 11

I agree. More specifically bin Laden and Al Qaeda killed those people.

People make decisions and they must be held accountable for those decisions as far as I am concerned. There is no good reason why bin Laden was even alive when Clinton left office. To be commander-in-chief you must have good judgement and courage. That is a major reason why I will end up sitting this one out and I believe there will be many Democrats who will not be able to vote for either Hillary or Obama.

That defines pretty much all of Congress. That alone doesn’t make them dangerous.

What makes Obama dangerous is the obsession and hysteria which, though none of his doing, he has masterfully used.

The basic problem with humans is that we are not successful evolutionary survivors because of our intelligence but because of the skill with which we transmit our genes.

We have had these obsessions and fads for centuries. I have been taken by how much the Obama phenomenon resembles the surge of fame which struck Lillie Langtry just after John Millais sold several sketches of her in that famous black dress after meeting her at a dinner party. She ended up being courtesan to Albert, Prince of Wales, the future king Edward VII.

This all goes to show you that we exhibit all the features of Einstein’s definition of insanity.