No Rand. Not now. Not ever...
Obama for 8 years followed by Hillary for 4-8 years would be far more disastrous that Rand Paul being elected.
Rand Paul is far more fiscally conservative than she (by a mile), and is more socially conservative than she (maybe not as much as Bush vs. Hillary would be) but still, he is NOT pro-choice.
So in him would be found two legs of the three-legged stool, and a position that isn't as interventionist as Bush, but not an isolationist either (despite what the LMSM says about him, since they fear him). Rand Paul is neither isolationist nor interventionist. He tends to be right down the middle.
Would we throw it all away if it came down to that one last leg of conservatism and let her walk in the WH?
Jeb Bush? No way. Romney? No way. Christie? No way. They are all RINOS.