Despite Hillary Bashing by not only Republicans but Democrat candidates, I pragmatically but ambivalently lean toward her as the next president. Unquestionably the perception is that she has high negatives by both sides and the pundit myth-makers—all of whom still think she should stay home and bake cookies—and I too feel low vibes but not for her personality—at least she has one which has been lacking in the White House—rather, I dislike her ties with shady fund-raisers and her cosy relationship with big business and Rubinomics. I’ve always held better big government than the alternative, but much preferred a legitimate partnership between the two.

Since she and her husband left the White House, they have become the nouveau riche, becoming a wealth-seeking duo venture: lecture tours, books, kick-backs allegedly from pardons, contrary to their meager money management of their past. Both are not only engaged in power politics but economic power as well—who can forget his $200 haircut while holding up flight schedules? [True, Edwards too is hypocritical indulging in $400 haircuts but his last one was $9!]

Still, it is better to be pro-business than anti-business, but it shouldn’t be an either/or issue we need business and labor to stay afloat if we are to regain a standard of living second to none. And government definitely has a hand in this as the esprit de corps of GM and UAW for recognizing the harsh reality of a global economy, and Wall Street’s cry for its perennial bail-outs.

This said, I think Hillary is moderately Machiavellian to scam her wealthy backers by doing what’s right for the nation in general. In the grim scenario of slimy politics it is better to have a Julius Caesar than a Brutus.