Commenter Warner questions Hillary Clinton’s experience:

Unfortunately the only advantage she _can_ claim is experience, and I think that claim is pretty tenuous. I am surprised the Obama campaign gave as much room on that as they did. Eight years as First Lady responsible for a failed attempt at health care? Since when is First Lady public office? Since when are failures things we highlight on our resume’s?

I’m not exactly sure why she keeps highlighting the health care debacle in 1993, as not only did it fail but it was a complete and utter disaster that left a large number of Americans without affordable health care options for over 15 years.  It’s like applying for a job as a truck driver and putting on your resume the time you dozed off and drove an 18-wheeler into a daycare center.  I’m sure you’d learn a lot from the experience, and I’m sure you’d “still have the scars to show for it” (as Hillary often quips), but it doesn’t mean I’d hire you to drive my truck.

But I don’t want to do too much Hillary-bashing, there’s enough of that going around.  I think she’d be a good president in the way Lyndon Johnson was a good president.  He was great at the day-to-day bureaucratic operations, and he got a lot of good things done, but he often missed the big picture by a mile.  Hillary has a similar history of very competently, very efficiently missing the big picture.