I've decided, for very cynical reasons, that Hillary Clinton needs to be the nominee of the Democratic Party this year. There's been a lot of talk about "experience," in this campaign, but I suggest that it is not political experience, but national campaign experience, that could make the difference in whether a Democrat or Republican is elected in November.

This election must be won by a Democrat. There are too many issues important to the progressive movement to risk losing this election. Thus, the question becomes, who will better withstand the Republican attack machine?

The Republicans proved in 2000 and 2004 that they were capable of almost anything to insure they controlled the White House. Fox News and US Supreme Court ultimately handed the election to Gov. Bush in 2000, and the Swiftboaters won his reelection in 2004. I have very strong memories of my first President Election. I can picture that Willie Horton revolving door ad that sunk Gov. Michael Dukakis's campaign. Similarly we know what Bush did to his own rival in Republican Party in South Carolina in 2000, push polling the idea that Sen. McCain had "black" baby out of wedlock (it was non-White child, he and his second wife adopted). The GOP will do the same thing this year: they will stop at nothing and do everything in their power to make sure they win, whether it’s fair and square or not.

We've seen charges, by Rock Hackshaw and others, that the Clinton Camp is directly playing very hard to win and using unscrupulous tactics to do it (bringing up Mr. Obama's past drug use, allegations he’s a Muslim, playing the "race card," etc.). Whether Sen. Clinton's campaign is doing these things or not, the question remains, if these things are possible from a Democrat, what will the Republicans do with him? Does anyone belief the Republicans won’t make worse attacks than those allegedly done by Sen. Clinton’s people?

It just seems like the Clintons know how to fight against these people better than Sen. Obama, because they have experience. They know how to run a National Campaign and win and how to counter the attacks of the Right and fight back hard. Maybe Sen. Obama can, too, but he never has played in this league before.

Sen. Clinton will also be attacked, but she’s been the subject of Republican attacks since they defeated her National Health Care plan during the first Bill Clinton administration. Are there things about Hillary Clinton that American People don’t already know? I doubt it.

Sen. Obama had comparatively easy run for Senate. He won the primary by 29 points after his main rival had a scandal. His original GOP opponent, Jack Ryan, had a huge sex scandal regarding his ex-wife who was a TV star on Star Trek: Voyager, and withdrew. Alan Keyes, who wasn't even from the state, was the Republican on the ballot and Sen. Obama won in a landslide. A friend from Illinois told me that his first run for State office was also not a nasty hard won campaign. His first race for higher office (US House) he lost. This is not to say anything about Sen. Obama's experience or character. I am a big fan, but it's not his experience as a politician that worries me, but his experience as a campaigner.

Sen. Obama's message of hope and change are truly inspiring (his "concession" speech in New Hampshire was so much better than Hillary's acceptance). I think Sen. Barack Obama is a better candidate for President in some ways and might make a better President than Sen. Clinton, but he has to get elected President, which I'm not sure can do. I'm afraid his inspiring message of hope won't be enough and we'll be seeing President McCain or Romney sworn in next year if he’s the nominee.

Thus, I believe that simply for the reason that Sen. Clinton, who has been part of two National Campaigns, and a tough won Senate battle, she has the best campaign experience to win. I know these are cynical reasons, but losing is just not an option.