I'm sick of all these arguments that 'oh my spouse is an astrophysicist does that mean I'm an astrophysicist now'? No it does not. That's because his work does not involve you in the least. He leaves home, goes to a place of work, and engages in that work without communicating to you about it, while you go and do something entirely different.
Hillary never claimed that she had a President's experience. Her work in the White House years did give her important experience though, that would help her as President. In her first two years she was highly involved in pushing through a plan that ultimately did not succeed, and learned important lessons from them. That's evidenced by her later successful work pushing smaller versions of expanded health care through a Republican Congress. In other words she has done a lot of work on a major policy issue for a long time and knows it well. Because of these experiences she also knows Congress quite well.
Being in the White House also gave her experience on how the media and interest groups interact with the Executive branch and how to deal with them. It gave her awareness and exposure to global issues even if she did not negotiate them personally. It would be one thing if during those years she did not take an interest in policy or what was going on politically in her husband's Presidency, but she did. It is an unconventional kind of experience but it comes from the perspective of the Oval Office, which neither Senators nor Governors can claim.
Second of all there is the meme that what we want is change now and that experience doesn't matter, and Hillary doesn't bring change.
This is absurd. Both candidates want change and bring change. Hillary doesn't bring change meme is just based on the superficial fact that she is the spouse of a former President and that she has been around for a long time. What that fails to take into account is that for almost all the time she has been around, she has been outside of, and usually opposite of the prevailing winds in Washington.
Obama has Ted Kennedy stumping for him. If Ted Kennedy were elected President, who would doubt that would bring a lot of change from Bush? Even if he is the brother of a former President, even if he has been around for 40 years, even if he is a lightning rod on the right? The point is just because you've been around Washington for a long time it doesn't mean you can't represent change. Both candidates agree on the war and the other issues.
The third meme is that Hillary represents the old kind of negative politics and Obama is all hope and no calculation, no negative attacks, no distortions whatsoever. The charges and points made on this meme have been particularly bitter. I think Bill Clinton made a huge mistake around the South Carolina primary by his remarks comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, and Hillary's response to Obama's Reagan comment should have been more accurate. But Obama has also negatively attacked Hillary and misrepresented her positions. And he has done so more often when he was behind in the polls. And he benefits and knowingly exploits far harsher attacks than the ones he himself has launched.
The fourth meme is that Hillary well she didn't apologize for the war and therefore she has bad judgment/is a warmonger. There are two arguments here, one is that she did not vote against the war in 2002. First of all on this point neither did John Edwards, and a lot of people felt he was qualified to be President. Second of all Obama was in the state senate at the time running for a very liberal district, so it was politically in line with him to be against the war. By 2003 the anti-war message had disappeared from his website, also around the time the war became more popular. In 2004 and 2005 his anti-war tone suddenly became silent and muted, and he said he agreed with Bush's position on the war. This was when he public profile became more statewide and national. As late as November 2006 he gave a speech basically giving the same points as the later Kyl-Lieberman resolution would spell out, but by November 2007 he was painting himself as the candidate who opposed it vehemently. What kind of judgment does it show that he keeps sending mixed signals about his opinions?
Hillary has basically said her vote was a mistake, a huge mistake, when she says that if we knew what we've known in the past few years, there would never even have been a vote. The reason she does not explicitly apologize, is because I think she wants Americans to feel that she is a little tougher on national security. Lots of people will suddenly irrepressibly see red and see their blood presure rise uncontrollably as a result of that statement. But that does not mean WARMONGER. In fact Obama has been far more aggressive. He's said he would attack Pakistan without their government's permissions. That might trigger a revolution in the country and destabilize their government, throwing it into the hands of extremists. Nothing destabilizes more than war. Pakistan has 140 million people. It's far bigger than Iraq. Obama's comments seemed warmongering. So by that logic Obama is more 'warmongering' going forward. But the truth is that neither of them is a 'warmonger' and to think so is absurd.
Then there is the meme that Obama 'brings in more voters' than Clinton. I see this has highly suspect. First of all, high turnout has benefitted both Obama and Clinton, not just Obama. Clinton did better than average among first time caucus goers in Iowa, and won on increased turnout in New Hampshire and record turnout in Nevada and surprisingly high 1.5 million voter turnout in Florida. Second of all, the polls show mixed results. State by state breakdowns and aggregations usually show Hillary doing slightly better, even though Obama has gotten far better press coverage. She does a lot better in red states like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Oklahoma than Obama does. The national polls are mixed- Rasmussen generally has Obama doing a lot better, but Gallup and LA Times have Hillary doing slightly better. Thirdly, Hillary still has the Clinton name, which is still popular with a lot of blue collar Democrats who have swung between the parties in recent elections, as well as many independents.
Then there is the meme that Obama will work better with the other side than Clinton. I have already diaried about this. Hillary has worked with dozens of conservative Republicans successfully and much legislation has come out of that work, including respect for her and comments of praise from conservative Republicans, like Gingrich and Lindsey Graham. She did better in Republican areas of New York in 2006 than any Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964, even though it was pretty obvious that she was going to be running for President by then and the Senate race was just going to be a beauty contest to see how high a percentage she got.
Then there is the meme that she is too polarizing.
As for Obama- Michael Dukakis had 66% favorabilities in 1988, far higher than Obama now. Kerry has similar favorabilities in early 2004. Walter Mondale could bring out huge crowds. That didn't translate into votes. Big crowds and lots of donors and excitement among even a lot of people doesn't mean you will necessarily win. In fact it can be warning sign about where your excitement isn't coming from.
Hillary's favorability ratings have been highly variable. They were low in the mid-1990s, high in the late 1990s, low again in the early 2000s, high in the mid-2000s, and split about 50-50 now. In other words peoples opinions change. Most Presidential candidates usually go through changes in favorability over the course of a general election-- and history has shown that it's not the best predictor of electoral success.
Finally there is the idea that only change matters and experience doesn't matter. Bullshit. Both matter. We have to look beyond 2008 and 2009, into the next Presidency and what kind of legacy it will leave the Democratic party. We need a Presidency that will not only build a winning campaign, a Presidency not only that has eloquence, but also a Presidency that will leave voters with a lasting positive impression of the party by governing well and competently. This is where Hillary's experience, intelligence and grasp of policy matters makes a difference. This is where her long years of working in Congress, and the relationships she has built, makes a difference. I want someone who can effectively push for progressive legislation, and craft them so that they will be successful and make a big impact. That would be the true transformative accomplishment for the Democratic party and for America. And this is what voters care about- more than the daily news cycle- more than anything else. Is results; competent, well-managed government. Hillary has been there, and has a better idea of what it will take than Obama.