In his column in today's NY Times, Adam Nagourney notes that a number of Clinton campaign operatives counted on Barack Obama's campaign blunders to underscore the often-heard Clinton argument that Hillary's greater experience qualifies her better as a leader:
The confidence of Mrs. Clinton and her advisers last fall was based on their belief that Mr. Obama’s inexperience as a candidate would lead him to make mistakes on the campaign trail, and that the image of Mr. Obama’s making mistakes as a candidate would reinforce her central argument that he did not have experience to be president.
Of course, the events of the last month -- including the well-publicized string of 11 victories on the part of Obama to none on the part of Clinton -- would suggest not only that Obama has yet to make significant mistakes as a candidate, but also that Clinton has made massive blunders of her own. Here again Nagourney:
Political analysts and journalists, in judging a candidacy gone bad, invariably focus on a campaign’s bad moves and wrong turns, with a dash of the requisite infighting among powerful staff aides and complaints by contributors. And the Clinton campaign, after starting off smoothly and with such self-assurance, provided a wealth of that: Wasted money, bad strategic calls on what states to contest, a message that failed to grasp how the mood of Democrats had changed and the questionable deployment of a certain former president.
Though Nagourney fails to take the obvious next step, wouldn't the natural move be to accept the Clinton camp's own premise that one's success or failure as a candidate is an indicator of one's readiness to govern -- and thus to conclude that it is Clinton, and not Obama, who has demonstrated inexperience, poor judgment, and a lack of readiness?
How can anyone in the media, given the preponderance of evidence of serious mismanagement, still even mention Hillary's continued claims to greater experience with a straight face?