Matt, Scarlett and Hillary

The media drumbeat over the Republican-Libertarian primary is like a toothache - incessant and painful. The best way to stop the discomfort - by shutting off the media - isn't a choice I'm making right now. So my pain control strategy is to instead pay attention to the Democratic headache.

Matt Damon is an attractive and capable public figure who behaved with intelligent dignity during the 2008 Presidential campaign. I'm not sure I understand why it's important to have some young actor involved in politics, but I know it's the way things are done, especially by Democrats.

This time around, Damon is pulling back from the President, chiding him in public and implying he'll sit out the campaign. I think he's using is a dangerous tactic, akin to destroying the village to save it. But I understand the impulse to kick our uninspiring Administration in the pants. One way politics works is for friends to become critics, and then return to the fold for the denouement.

Scarlett Johansson is another attractive and apparently able actor who has been a strong supporter of a number of Democratic politicians. She has not gone the Damon route - she continues her steadfast support of the President, politely scoffing at the Damon-esque strategy of public disparagement.

You'd be disappointed if I didn't throw in some reference to the past. I recall in 1963 sitting all night on the floor of a University administration building in Madison, debating this basic point: do you work for change from within or from the outside? I imagine this discussion went on in the Roman Senate and among Moses' wandering Jews, it's a rudimentary disputation in all politics.

In 1963 I was a "work from the outside" kind of guy, as were most of the group. After all we were sitting in, taunting the cops. These days, I haven't moved from the outside to the inside camp. Now I want both, a buddy movie starring Scarlett and Matt. I think we can do a good job of denouncing the Obama Administration, while still helping with phone banks and writing checks. I'm better abe to see both approaches as politically justifiable and even necessary. And that brings us to Hillary.

Robert Reich writes in the HuffPo about swapping Biden and Hillary. Having seen this same speculation in several places in the last 10 days or so, I'm assuming it's a trial balloon; I'd guess it comes from Biden. Until Reich's article came out, I didn't pay much attention to the speculation, because I assumed Sec. Clinton wouldn't feel compelled.

Reich points out motivation from inside the Democratic Party: if Clinton joins Obama as VP, she'll be as well positioned as she ever can be to run for President in 2016. The Democratic Party would have 16 years of continuous rule, enough time to change some of the country's power levers, especially the Supreme Court. Clinton has shown from her time in the Senate that she's an especially adept team player - I think she'd be most amenable to overcoming her reluctance to drill deeper into the Obama regime if party heavies made the appeal.

Also an Obama-Clinton ticket would go a ways towards mollifying the Damon demons, securing a portion of Obama's left, enabling him to push a bit to the right to counter the Romney campaign. Any Republican other than Romney will remove much of the pressure on Obama's people to accept Clinton in the #2 position, since Obama will not need to push so far into the center if he's running against a reactionary looney.