Throughout the campaign, Clinton has argued that she has the better grasp of official Washington, which is probably true. Through hard work and intelligence, she has built an admirable record of success as a senator that has impressed even some Republican colleagues.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well — official Washington also has a better grasp on Clinton.
Perhaps burned by her experience in her husband's administration, she has too often chosen to play within the Washington system rather than dare to challenge its assumptions. And that's not the kind of leadership needed at the moment.
The prime example of that instinct was probably Clinton's vote last year in favor of naming Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. While that stance kept her in good standing in certain Washington circles, it also fed what at the time was a rising push toward military confrontation with Iran that was unnecessary and dangerous. Even voters willing to set aside Clinton's earlier vote giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq were taken aback when she seemed to have repeated that mistake.
For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.
Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America's course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/18/endorsed_0120.htmlIs the Atlanta Journal-Constitution an influential paper?