Frank Rich hits the nail on the head in his column today comparing Clinton’s Iraq speech with Obama’s speech on race:
You have to wonder if her Iraq speech would have been greeted with the same shrug if she had tossed away her usual talking points and seized the opportunity to address the war in the same adult way that Mr. Obama addressed race. Mrs. Clinton might have reconnected with the half of her party that has tuned her out.
She is no less bright than Mr. Obama and no less dedicated to public service. Itâ€™s not her fault that she doesnâ€™t have his verbal gifts â€” who does? But her real problem isnâ€™t her speaking style. Itâ€™s the content. Mrs. Clinton neednâ€™t have Mr. Obamaâ€™s poetry or pearly oratorical tones to deliver a game-changing speech. She just needs the audacity of candor. Yet she seems incapable of revisiting her history on Iraq (or much else) with the directness that Mr. Obama brought to his reappraisal of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
It’s another way of saying what has bothered me about her all along: either she lacks courage in her convictions, or she lacks convictions. Either way, I regret my vote for her.