Too many Democratic debates?
I think Obama’s getting some good mileage out of his retort that, in light of the problems that face us, especially including Iraq, Washington experience is a lot less than what it’s cracked up to be, maybe even a negative. Clinton, meanwhile, is eroding the negatives that have been systematically built-up around her by the right wing message machine for the last seven years. Some of those negatives, like the charge that she is “a polarizing figure,” are absurd, a perfect example of bootstrap perceptions: she is “polarizing” because Republicans (and even some Democrats and independents) think she is polarizing because they are told relentlessly by the message machine that she is polarizing with zero evidence to support it (and massive evidence to contradict it). Her negatives may be high in number, but I believe they are very thin. In a general election, when Americans have seen her in action for awhile, they will erode to mostly hard-core Republicans.
Meanwhile, Obama will be able to drive out perceptions of inexperience by the sheer intelligence he presents. Hillary will be able to play off her Chicago roots and years supporting Bill in the Arkansas hinterlands to let us know she has not lost touch with the view from outside the Beltway. As a matter of fact, what a team!!! Brilliance, experience, the inside expertise with the outside perspective, change anchored to reality, and above all, Democrats. Letterman said that over-and-over when he had Obama on his show a few months ago: “Clinton and Obama, Obama and Clinton, what a powerhouse team that would be, don’t you think?” Obama didn’t miss a beat: “Well, of course, but, um, Dave, what order did you have in mind there?”