Note: Race 4 2008 is pleased to present the following op-ed by attorney and freelance writer Jennifer Rubin. As someone that truly enjoys Jennifer’s insight, it is an honor for me to be able to feature her work here.-KWN

______________________________________________________________________________

If Hillary Clinton were a Republican, her nomination would be nothing more than a formality. Millions in the bank, a raft of staff, a solid resume and universal name recognition. As they did with George Bush and Bob Dole, the Republicans when presented with such a candidate would dispense with pesky challengers. But Democrats, at least in this presidential election, have more basic concerns. Do they value experience or charisma? Do they want to believe again or just win?

Some campaigns and elections are about policy prescriptions, qualifications and positions. Is it good economic policy to lower marginal rates? Is a nuclear freeze a realistic tactic for dealing with the Soviet Union ? However, once in a generation one or both parties redefines itself and reaches for something more. The Democrats did that in 1960, selecting a youthful, charismatic and optimistic JFK over the obviously more qualified Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey. The Republicans did it in 1980 when Ronald Reagan beat out George Bush and his hefty resume.

Perhaps 2008 is another of this sort of election for the Democrats. With all the knotty issues both domestically and internationally it seems counterintuitive to say that qualifications and policy prescriptions are not the deciding factor. On closer inspection, though, perhaps not. If the problems are so difficult that no one has viable let alone easy solutions then it is more understandable that voters would shift their gaze to the person whose basic decency, good judgment and intelligence is going to have to guide them through the morass in which we now find ourselves.

This I think is the trap Hillary never expected to fall into. Like the overeager high school student who builds the resume and dutifully performs community service but flubs the college interview when asked #quot;what do you value most in friends?#quot;, Hillary is perhaps exactly the right candidate in the wrong election.

Had her health care plan not become the subject of scorn she might not have become wary of big ideas. Singed by the failure of her first great policy initiative she internalized the wrong lesson- don’t be bold. She recounted in #quot;Living History#quot; that she had tearfully apologized to supporters following the demise of her grand scheme: #quot;I was sorry if I had let everyone down and contributed to our losses. It wouldn’t happen again.#quot; This unfortunate episode reinforced her inclination toward caution and control. The result: four years of bland, inoffensive and nearly invisible presence in the Senate. Avoiding spontaneous press inquiries and steering clear of interview shows, she virtually receded into the woodwork of the august senate chambers. Kennedy took the lead in opposing judicial nominations. Feingold railed against supposed infringements on civil liberties. Levin and Biden shined the focus on mismanagement of the war. Hillary? Flag burning and violent videos seem to occupy her time. Instead of bold initiatives, she built a war chest, lined up political allies and studiously avoided any statement or action which could later been labeled as #quot;weak on defense.#quot; There would be no #quot;I voted for the war before I was against it#quot; moments for her.

Now, rather than embrace the behemoth candidate, Democrats unsurprisingly are restless and disenchanted with their star candidate. Like an overlooked and neglected spouse they want to be swept off their feet, charmed and excited. Waiting in the wings to console the unappreciated party faithful is someone young, charming and articulate who clearly has not spent years meticulously planning his ascent to power.

Experience should not be confused with good judgment he will argue. He was against the war before he was against the war. He chose an issue-earmark and ethics reform- that was timed just perfectly to coincide with the public distaste for Republican greed and corruption. Not a bad record for a Democrat to run on.

He didn’t hide from the press. He went on book tour, answered questions, and sat with Oprah. No running down the hall with a wave of the hand from him. He connected on an emotional level with people, unafraid that they might ask him a question for which there was not a poll tested response.

He also offers a purpose and a theme which every campaign needs. In a nutshell it is the message of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: #quot;With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.#quot; Better than #quot;New Frontier,#quot; it is both timely and timeless. Beats #quot;I sat in the Senate for 6 years without leaving a mark#quot; every time.

So, will it be about qualifications or charisma? Warmth or calculation? Will the party marry for love or money? Here is an educated guess. You can gain experience and acquire staff and money but you either have #quot;emotional intelligence#quot; and the ability to convince every person in a crowd that you are actually speaking directly to him, or you don’t. JFK had it. Reagan had it. Bill Clinton had it. The one Democratic candidate who has it this time will get the nomination.