Defeating the purpose of winning

Selecting Hillary Clinton as the candidate for Vice President would defeat the purpose of winning. If the idea is to change the corporate culture and end the negative politics, she would be a huge step backward. On fair trade and health care she would be even worse than Obama if she ever ascended to the presidency.

Clinton was a big supporter of NAFTA as first lady. In the movie "Sicko" she is shown as a big collector of money from insurance companies. At least Obama had talked about single payer health care earlier in his career, so there is a chance he could bring it up after he gets in office. Clinton has demonstrated she will say or do almost anything to get elected, including fabricating stories about being under sniper fire, then blaming it on sleep deprivation, while asserting that she will be better able to answer a crisis phone call at 3 am.

In the delegate count, Obama is ahead, 1953 to 1770. Even if Clinton gets her way on Michigan and Florida, Obama is still ahead, 2020 to 1948, six votes shy of the 2026 needed to win.

In the 1992 primary season, I remember phoning and campaigning for Jerry Brown against Bill Clinton for President. I wanted to talk about Tyson chicken waste in the rivers of Arkansas, and I wanted to ask questions about drug-running and contra training out of Mena, Arkansas. I felt a lot of pressure to "not go negative" and "unify" the party. When the shoe was on the other foot, the Clinton juggernaut was relentless. Brown was allowed to speak at the convention, but he was virtually ignored by Clinton fans.

In 2008, there are other ways to reach out to Clinton voters than to put her on the ticket.

When Kucinich dropped out, Edwards was the closest thing Dems had to a Green. Now Obama is. Don’t squander what gains you’ve made by slipping back further toward corporatism.