Even if you're right, which you very well may be, can Clinton get things done while polarizing half the country and all the Repub pols strongly against her, and not building as broad a coalition of constituent voters? Just asking.

I'm sort of with Conrad here.

I think Clinton, in a vaccuum -- with her own tools under the sink (to keep with your analogy) -- probably would be great for that. The problem becomes how she's going to govern, how she's going to get things done as President (not as a Senator).

I see Obama as a leader -- his viewpoints reflect mine (and Hillarys to a large degree) -- but he's able to get the home owners and plumbers together and build a lasting infrastructure of piping that would have a solid foundation and prevent the need for daily fixes. (this is your analogy btw -- just trying to play along).

One additional point is the Congress. Can we pick up seats with Hillary on the top of the ticket or as President? My personal view (and it is just that) is that she is a lightning rod and an easy target to rally against. I see us losing the Senate (at a minimum) with her as President or at the top of the ticket. It happened with Bill, and it can happen with her. Remember, we didn't lose the house and senate because of Lewinsky...it was way before that.

I think her scorched-earth politics counters her claim that she's 'battle tested.' It just means she can fight...it doesn't mean she can build.

In your attempt to provide, I guess, evenhanded analysis, you are dismissing Senator Obama as much talk and little action. The reality is far different. He's built coalitions to pass difficult legislation--something Clinton has never done as a legislator (the emphasis is on difficult). She's a skilled politician, but she cannot and has not been successful on downballot tickets. The most requested campaigner in the 2006 elections: Senator Obama. Finally, if this election has taught me anything, it's this: Senator Obama is a superior politician and campaigner than Senator Clinton. The results are pretty self-evident, so I won't go beyond this: He's not only bested her in electoral victories, but he's also done something she can't do--broaden the Democratic party.

But more to your specific point, Senator Clinton may be the most gifted wonk who's ever run for president (besides maybe Al Gore) but the question is: if she can't broaden the Democratic party and usher in a greater Democratic majority in both houses, what precisely will her wonkish skills be worth in the current environment? Bumpkus.

The only joint ticket that works is Obama/Clinton. The problem of course is that Clinton has no interest in playing second banana to another superior politician (she's been doing that most of her married life). The reverse ticket would be political suicide for Obama. Better to finish his senate term and run for governor.

HC+BO = UNBEATABLE

I completely agree.

Why won't TPM even touch this topic?

Hmm ... pretty obvious to me - TPM (Josh Marshall) favors Obama.

Obviously that is his right, but not even mentioning / discussing this potential (and very likely ticket) is disengenuous.

Clinton may not be perfect, but she by far represents the best chance for victory in November.

Furthermore, she can pick just about anyone as her VP - Obama is in a box and has to be someone with foreign policy cred. - that is very limiting and leaves him very few options.

Hillary might be good at nut-and-bolts, but it's clear that Obama can motivate and inspire people, much more so than Clinton. Look at his donor base.

After 8 years of Bush, and with the Congressional Filibuster Fallback routine ready to thwart whatever the new President attempts, we need inspiration much more than we need competence.

PS, since you said you were new to this: nice job. I would only recommend some paragraph breaks, to space it out and make it a bit easier to read.

Style counts, just as much as substance.