The election of President Bush proved that you don't have to be smart, especially qualified, or have a clean past to get elected. To get elected you need an effective campaign. If the citizens of our country could elect Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, they can certainly do the same for Clinton or Obama. A candidate is only as strong as his or her campaign.
Quite obviously, Clinton and Obama are running the best campaigns. How do we know this? Because they are winning and both have a real chance of being the Democratic nominee. They are both doing the same things. The Obama campaign took the "shuck and jive" comment of Andrew Cuomo and began building race consciousness. The Clinton campaign used a tearful moment in NH to exploit the candidate's femininity. Obama ran national ads that appeared in Florida; Clinton held a sanctioned fundraiser but managed to get it well publicized and drew Florida support by calling for the seating of her delegates. Both of these campaigns are doing smart things.
Both candidates have positioned themselves in the center. Obama reaches out to religious people, even fairly conservative ones who believe, for instance, homosexuality is a choice. Clinton appeals more to those who are ambivalent about the war in Iraq. Obama appeals to the young, who usually don't vote in their fair proportion, but who create great ground troops. Clinton appeals to the old, who do vote, but are not as energetic as young people. Obama reaches out to independents with his words of unity and an end to divisiveness, and Clinton does so by reminding them of the economy during the Bill Clinton years.
Obama talks about unity, which advertises the divisiveness of the the Clintons (which is in part a right-wing creation). Clinton talks about experience, which is to promote the idea that Obama is not experienced and perhaps too young. Obama speaks in lofty terms, much like an elder statesman. Clinton often comes across as a talk show host, and in some ways acts younger than Obama. Obama dresses conservatively to make him look older. Clinton often wears bright colors and takes full advantage of makeup to make herself look younger. These decisions are made by their strategists.
Years ago, I worked on the Ted Kennedy for President campaign, and I knew for a fact about cheating at the voting booth. But, Ted's supporters, including me, looked the other way. After all, if you are working on a campaign, you want your candidate to win. After that, I was the paid coordinator in the Carter campaign for a 5 county region around Albany, New York. The Carter office was on a busy corner, and I would get parking tickets every day. I would go to City Hall and meet with the mayor (Erastus Corning), who would take care of the parking tickets. Carter's staff and volunteers had a much easier time in Albany than Reagan's.
Politics is not honest, and even if you read about elections from 200 years ago, it was the exact same game. (For instance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800)
In Churchill's famous words, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." I think there's a lot of truth in that, but I think the most important thing is that we understand that the race for President is like the race for the Superbowl. It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose.
If you look at all the campaigns so far, it's pretty clear that Clinton and Obama are bringing in far more people than they're losing through divisiveness. The Republicans can't say the same. Even in Florida, the Democrats turned out in nearly the same numbers as the Republicans despite the fact that there was no Democratic campaign and that the votes most likely won't count. The Democratic campaign right now is miles ahead of the Republican one, in large part thanks to tough race between Clinton and Obama. Right now, the Democrats have a huge advantage. But, in the end, the winner is rarely the best candidate, it's the best campaign.