Let's face it, fellow Obama supporters: Mrs. Clinton has a 35 year record against Barack Obama's mere 20 year experience as public defender, community activist/organizer, State Senator, and finally US Senate. 35 years as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the US, and US Senate are tough to beat!
So, Obama needs to neutralize his experience deficit in some meaningful way that can easily be condensed and explained at the next debate, or Mrs. Clinton may just turn this race around.
If Clinton is so dead-sure experience is the ne plus ultra qualification for POTUS, shouldn't she then concede right now to Mc Cain, who has a far greater record of public service than she? Or, shouldn't she have bowed out the moment she heard that Joe Biden was entering the race? I don't recall her lamenting his absence after he pulled out in January.
Oh, wait! Maybe length of experience [all those years as wife of a powerful Chief Executive] aren't as important as the judgement of the person running for office. If that's so, then Obama should point that out: that either Clinton concede now to Mc Cain, who has far more experience than her [AND WOULD DEFINATELY USE HER OWN WORDS AGAINST HER], or she should admit that judgement is more important than length of experience.
The problem for Clinton [and Mc Cain] is that experience is supposed to confer wisdom [i.e. judgement] on anyone who has been paying attention during their time on Earth, and yet these two battle-scarred warriors are still defending their votes for the Iraq War, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, etc. So there is a disconnect somewhere between years and wisdom, and that is what is really at issue.
For I do not believe that Mrs. Clinton is not intelligent enough to understand how her vote for War went against the evidence in the 2002 NIE--which she never bothered to read--or that Iraq was a nation with a population 50% under the age of 17 [which means she was voting to kill a lot of innocent children]. No, Mc Cain [884 out of 899 in his class] may be able to hide behind stupidity, but not Clinton.
The real issue; the reason for the disconnect; why anyone with intelligence and experience would vote for a War to control oil reserves despite the evidence that national security was not at stake; is character, or lack thereof. And you make that point, Mr. Obama, by pointing out that intelligence and length of experience are of little value if the person possessing them is deficient in the one truly essential quality of a leader, which all the time and brains in the world cannot replace.
BTW-- the next time Clinton claims responsibility for the great 90's economy, ask her if she has a plan for getting oil prices back to under $22/barrel, which was the average for that decade.