For reasons mentioned by James Carville, who called him "the most qualified person ever to run for president," and Larry Sabato (Prof. at U of Virginia) who said "if he gets the nomination, the Republicans all say they are dead," I thought Bill Richardson would have been the best choice both for the nomination to win a broad victory and to serve as president. Alas, that is not to be. Thus, I come to the question of Barack vs. Hillary without bias based upon early choice, but with a recognition of the importance of emotional factors both in making choices and in leadership. [In reading further, I urge people to consider that this is NOT about what Hillary or Barack deserve, but what the American people need and deserve].
The Clintons would bring to the White House almost everything Democrats and progressives have found wanting with George Bush: a refocus on the middle class, some winding down of the Iraq War, a push for universal health care, appointing non-ideologues to the Supreme Court, a return to policy based upon facts rather than wished-for beliefs, a push against global warming, and reaching out to the world at large without arrogance and without messianic zeal (note what he first four letters of "messianic" spell!).
So would Barack Obama.
I would give Barack more "credit" on his commitment to remove the troops, and thus more likely to happen, and to happen soon, than the Clintons who still have not said anything negative about the decision to go to war except that it was poorly executed, and would not have supported it if she knew then how badly it would have been run. Moreover, Barack's prescience (like Jim Webb's) of the consequences of invading and occupying Iraq bespeaks a judgment that would make it more likely to avoid future foreign policy disasters; that said, I suspect an "Iraq syndrome" will stay the hands of the Clintons from embarking on misadventures.
Notwithstanding Hillary's claims to experience, I have heard nothing to suggest she has any executive experience, nor any experience in preventing or combating terrorism, her "day 1" argument.
Indeed, Barack has more experience in national politics than Bill Clinton had when he took office, and 8 vs. 12 years in state government compared to Bill Clinton himself. Thus, it is hard to see much daylight between Barack and Hillary on relevant experience.
Certainly, not enough to be dispositive. Bill Clinton just addressed a rally in which he pointed out that spending $30B now to save people from foreclosures is better than $300B a year from now when 1,000s have already lost their homes, and indicated that that was what presidential leadership was all about. Not controversial, except the implication was that Hillary saw this all coming a year ago and suggested pre-emptive action. She didn't. She offered her proposals after the subprime crisis had been talked about for weeks.
There is nothing the Clintons bring to the election or the presidency that Barack Obama does not.
The converse, however, is not true.
One could not put the strength of Barack's emotional appeal, and its importance, any better than Caroline Kennedy did. We could add that his persona itself provides people hope that they, too, can live out their dreams.
Moreover, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, Barack's background provides a connection to the third world, where most of our problems reside, that no other person has ever had. What most Americans do not realize is that the third world views Americans as exploitative, but view minority Americans as part of the exploited. Thus, there is a natural empathy between minority Americans and third world people and leaders. Whether irrational or not, it is real. That minority status doubtless helped Bill Richardson establish rapport with hostage-holders. With Obama as president, that emotional connection could provide the United States not just a return to respect among our friends, but an opening to the rest of the world that we desperately need.
Barack also brings the real chance of major healing and reconciliation in this country's politics, whereas the Clintons bring a certainty of sharpened divisions. Irrational, or psychotic as it may be, nothing the Clintons or their surrogates say can say or do will change that fact. Their die has been cast.
If, as it appears, McCain is the Republican nominee, an Obama nomination would mean the stark contrast between the past and the future. Hillary as the nominee would solidify the right-wing, who otherwise cannot abide McCain, behind him. With McCain's appeal to independents, Hillary might find it difficult to compete in the midwest and west. With McCain's prominent role in comprehensive immigration reform, he would not be automatically dismissed by the hispanic community.
Then, we must consider how Congress will operate with Hillary as President compared to Barack as President. The key is the Senate. If the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority (i.e., 60 votes, an unlikely achievement ESPECIALLY if Hillary headed the ticket), Republicans will have the power of obstruction. They have wielded that power without shame, and largely without an echo-chamber of criticism that the Democrats endured, for example, when they blocked radical rightwing judicial nominees.
With Hillary as President, and for the same reasons as mentioned above, Senate Republicans will find it difficult to enable a Clinton presidency by compromise without their base going ballistic. The same is not true for Obama. Hence, more of the common agenda among all the Democratic candidates will likely become reality.
Then, there is Bill Clinton himself. What would be better for the country, having him reprise his role as "elder statesman" as he would do in an Obama presidency, or having him continue his erratic, and sometimes destructive, performance during the campaign into another stint in the White House? Just as I wrote in "How Handlers Have Hurt Hillary" (January 7, 2008), putting the same general in charge of two different wars is not a good idea -- much time and effort is expended trying to prove that mistakes of the first war (in this case, first term) were not really mistakes at all.
Finally, while the Clintons might look for bipartisanship (getting Republican votes for some compromise measures), Barack seeks transcendence. That is, Barack's vision is not to craft compromises between liberals and conservatives, but rather to forge new majorities that abolish the divisions of the past that are old, tired and false.
To gauge how false they are, consider how the rightwing masks its true intentions regarding social programs such as Social Security and Medicare -- they claim all they are doing is "improving" or "strengthening" those programs, they cannot say honestly that they want them to "die on the vine" (Newt Gingrich) because they know they are popular. The only modestly positive legacy George Bush will have is the introduction of Medicare Part D, paying for prescription drugs.
Barack Obama offers the country everything that Hillary Clinton does -- and much more.