I'm growing tired of those who continue to describe Barack Obama as insubstantial and inexperience compared with Hillary Clinton. Karl Rove is the latest naysayer, announcing this morning on Face the Nation that the first-term senator is "thin." Rove, always the cunning liar, is of course highly invested in a Clinton candidacy. He knows she represents the GOP's best chance at keeping the White House.
Barack Obama has actually served as an elected official longer than Hillary Clinton. He was first elected to the Illinois State House in 1996, having lived and worked in Illinois for 7 years. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was first elected to represent New York in the U.S. Senate in 2000, a state she had never lived in prior to running for office and having never served in public office prior to that campaign. Hillary's experience card is absurdly over-played.
Another common criticism is Obama's age. At 46, he's just too young to be president. This is perhaps the most hypocritical attack levied by the Clinton campaign. Bill Clinton was 46 when he was elected. Teddy Roosevelt was 42, Franklin Roosevelt 51, and JFK 43. These were all popular and generally successful presidents.
For many of us who support Obama for President, character is certainly an issue. Hillary Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns is only the latest instance in a long history of shady Clintonian obfuscations. Yes, I believe Obama has the stronger character, and yes, he inspires me. More than this, I believe he has the right plan to lead us into a new era.
Clinton supporters need to find something better than age and experience if they think they're going to stop Obama's momentum.