Bernie and Hillary are complementary, not competitive; but the system is forcing them apart.

Humans learn. If humankind is to survive many persons will have to learn, to change their opinions when they gain new knowledge and are liberated from indoctrinating pressures. Both Hillary and Bernie have learned, and both have changed – which is good. Contemporary politics, if successful, requires compromise. Positions taken are often not simple. In the reality of media politics, both have to attend to their specific audiences with their varied levels of comprehension and knowledge. The media pushes them to make simple statements on complex issues and forces them into apparent conflict when details would reveal more subtle differences based on different contexts and objectives.

Both Bernie and Hillary have roughly, many of the same longterm goals, which will result from the achievement of many objectives, occurring over time.  Neither can turn everything around the first month in office. If they could relax and discuss goals they would probably agree that many of the details need yet to worked out, on the new systems that will enable those goals to manifest; and that they agree on the basic values to be attended to in achieving those goals.

Acknowledged: each are embedded in powerful social pressure cookers and are dependent on the trust of their staff and advisers.

They differ in the priority they give to their varied objectives. Many of their expressed differences are fueled by their forced competition.

Both will face a chaotic and uncertain world, broken governments, national and global crises, opposition and subversion from many quarters, and a population poorly informed and unprepared to think clearly, trapped in media silos. They could attend to this last factor if they united their campaigns and included uplift/educational messages to their constituencies.

Bernie’s primary focus is on one objective: a revolution in participatory democracy, which will take time. Most of his other objectives depend on the success of this first objective. The crises of the day will consume him, as president, and he won’t have the time and energy to devote to that revolution. The majority of the people will need to be educated (more than informed) of this objective and their goals.

Hillary’s primary focus is on navigating the here&now towards achievable objectives. I doubt she will have much more success than Obama until the composition of the Senate and House are changed, which will take time and partial success achieved toward Bernie’s political organization objective

There is enough work as POTUS to keep both Bernie and Hillary very busy. The Magnitude/Scope/Complexity (MSC) of America today tells us the the structure of government proposed in the constitution is no longer adequate. Large organizations, whether governments or corporations cannot be adequately “run” by one person. POTUS and CEO need to be small teams working within a seafed system to insure high quality decision-making. We can’t change the laws for 2016, but we could work around them to have the effect of a POTUS TEAM taking office in 2017.

The challenges of our times calls for radical action. From a cybernetics and systems analysis, the current system of USA government is grossly inadequate to perform responsibly. Indeed, it has already lost much of it original functionality. The Elections of 2016, a Theater of the Absurd, is only icing on the cake. I won’t attempt here to describe my current comprehension of the USA and world.

I recommend that the team include Martin O’Malley. He is younger, shares their goals, and has quality experience as a chief executive. So has Bernie been mayor, but from a different time, before the major influence of computers. TEAM POTUS should have an odd number of members to facilitate team decision-making.

FOR A TEAM POTUS IN 2016: O’Malley/Clinton/Sanders


  •         The electoral system can’t be changed, one must be elected president.
  •         How the TEAM POTUS  would function would have to be legal, immune from being blocked from functioning by legal actions.
  •         The three should not be formally engaged in discussion about this at first, but they should be informed (as it would eventually get to them). It will take time to educate them about the proposal, which must be explored and composed, in detail, by those most knowledgeable. To request their decision too soon would probably cause their electoral organization around them to block it. They should be “advised” to minimize commenting because they don’t want to make statements they would later regret. The TEAM POTUS members must be each given an explicit draft proposal at the same time, and a quality process set up for dialog and editing the proposal with their input.
  •         If the proposal is adopted by the candidates, the Democratic Convention would become an educational program for the public. No matter how the votes go in the states, the convention can determine the official president and vice-president. There could be alternative ways of organizing TEAM POTUS, which could be debated and voted on during the campaign – with public viewing. The Democratic Party Organization will also need to be brought on-board.
  •         TIME IS VERY SHORT. Yet, with computers and The Internet, this is not an impossible task.
  •         Hillary may be the most difficult to agree. She has deep roots in many “established”political forces, some who would resist. The rationale should be that, although her legacy would be different than were she the lone president, what might come of TEAM POTUS may be much vaster, and truly have a much greater impact on the USA and world. If she would agree only if she were nominated as formal POTUS, she should give strong public acceptance to TEAM POTUS, that she would find it difficult later to renege.


1. I compose a draft to post on my blog and send the url attached to an introductory email to a select list of persons for comment.  I request that initially the dialog be on my blog and NOT in a public social media platform. They may invite others to join, but also with the request to keep it a private group for awhile.

2. Dialog proceeds and if TEAM POTUS is to manifest, others in the dialog will form a team and organize the process. I lack the competencies to lead such a movement. I will be part of the movement and share share my insights.

3. Possibly, before a full GO decision, a new platform and means of dialog and editing the proposal might be constructed and managed by those competent to do so. This platform and protocols for use may actually be used for other projects.

ASIDE: The CNN sponsored Democratic Town Halls on Jan 26 and Feb 3 were of quality (much superior than the debates) and resulted in my insight to propose that the three candidates run as a presidential triad, TEAM POTUS. Adequate means for team decision-making is well known.  O’Malley has contemporary executive experience working with other institutions, and has done quite well as mayor and governor; Clinton has expertise in real-time negotiation and has international connections; Sanders has the longer term vision, but also pragmatic. They would make a powerful team. Is there any way this could be engineered to happen?