... although to report it that way would be sexist, no?
Actually almost keeping pace with Obama may be good enough for the running-mate position, and so it would have been a successful week for Clinton. (Reporting it that way would be non-sexist, eh? No such luck, because Clinton ends up only as VP.)
Oh, and damn, as I was typing this Thom Hartmann was on again with the ‘no hitting below the belt or you’ll have to get divorced’ theory of relationship counseling and it’s application to an Obama-Clinton pairing. That just makes my blood boil, because spouses hit below the belt constantly, because they have the motive, the opportunity, and the means. Just let me observe the Hartmanns for a while; they likely don’t even realize they are doing it. Thom Hartmann isn't very observant IMO, he has his head too buried in books and Federalist papers.
(‘Trust’ and ‘communications’ also tend to be nonsense. The ‘communications’ aspect is extremely wrong, almost palpably wrong, because spouses tend to communicate so well that they don’t have to say a word. It’s just that the message is often ‘Oh, just shut up, will you already!’ and then they both comply or they don’t comply, but the message is there and it is understood. And, come to think of it, that message likely is hitting below the belt.)