Listen to her closing words in the CNN debate on Thursday evening, and Hillary Clinton offered a concise reminder of the virtues of her candidacy, and the difficulty facing her campaign. No matter what happens, she relayed, the country will be best served by the Democratic Party coming together and achieving victory in November.

Hard to imagine now, even with primaries looming in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that Barack Obama will not be the party's nominee for president. The crowds greeting him have been large and enthusiastic. He has captured 10 consecutive states, in primaries and caucuses, in the north, south, east and west, and by wide margins, eroding the base of much Clinton support.

Many Ohioans surely will join the chant ''Yes, we can!'' in the coming days. They may do so thinking about ''electability.'' This editorial page has in mind the question of which candidate would make the stronger president, which candidate is more prepared for all the Oval Office presents its occupant, and the many challenges before the country at home and abroad.

We recommend a vote for Hillary Clinton in the March 4 presidential primary.

Her many critics, in the media and elsewhere, point to the struggling campaign, most notably, the muddled messages. They point to Bill Clinton playing too prominent, and clumsy, a role. Even admirers ask: Does the country really want to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, potentially for 28 years? Or return to the political wars of the 1990s?

The regrettable thing is, too little time in this campaign has been spent acknowledging the past eight years that Clinton has spent representing New York in the U.S. Senate. She has moved beyond those harshly partisan times. She has worked effectively with Democrats and Republicans, even those who once pushed for the impeachment of her husband. She has won praise from the Pentagon for her work on the Armed Services Committee.

Many military officers recognize she would be a formidable commander in chief.

Her resilience has deserved more attention, too. Many Clinton watchers point to her grit. There is something larger at work: Her temperament stands out as one of her finest qualities. Lose in a bid for sweeping reform of health care, and Clinton comes back with a program less ambitious but still substantial, achieving broader insurance coverage for children. The 1990s taught lessons, Clinton shedding much self-righteousness, acquiring the skills to navigate successfully in Washington.

Most impressive is her keen intelligence. No candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, can match her command of issues, foreign and domestic. Consider health care and education, two of the country's highest priorities. Clinton speaks to each with depth and clarity, articulating, say, the value of universal health coverage or ways to repair the troubled student loan program.

This race hardly has left room for fiscal discipline, amid all the promises and plans. Yet Clinton has demonstrated the most restraint. She articulates an approach overseas that involves this country playing a leading role, yet finding ways to work with others, understanding that issues such as combating terrorism, curbing climate change and opening trade require global strategies.

If her vote authorizing war in Iraq has harmed her candidacy in this primary season, she has been the more thoughtful and honest about the road ahead.

Many people in the Barack Obama camp cite his superb campaign organization as evidence of his capacity to do more than deliver inspiring words. They are correct. Obama can point to impressive achievements in the Illinois Senate. He played a leading role via style and substance. He has made a strong start in the U.S. Senate. Yet there remains so much that is uncertain and unformed about Obama. Bill Clinton was looking for a tactical advantage when cautioned that electing Obama would be a ''roll of the dice.'' There is an element of truth in his words.

For many Democrats, obviously, the risk is well worth it. It is hard not to be stirred by his promises of ''change,'' of breaking tired patterns in the halls of Washington. That said, once in office, the words give way to decisions, and all the fine talk loses its luster as a president struggles with deeds.

One frequently noted virtue of Hillary Clinton is that she is battle-tested, ready for whatever the Republicans throw at their opponent. Actually, she is tested in a more telling way. Neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton has much direct management experience. Still, of the three, Clinton has been on the scene in the governor's office and in the White House, alert to the pace and the breadth of the job. That makes a difference. She understands well the unique demands of the presidency.

Obama presents himself as a transforming figure. Actually, his campaign approach is familiar, just as his proposals are more conventional, more candy-for-everyone than he suggests, his recent pandering on the trade issue especially disappointing. He is running as the classic outsider. The truth is, Washington won't be changed in a dramatic way. Partisan clashes are expected, even promoted.

If both candidates represent a certain change, one seeking to become the first black president, the other the first woman president, the country is best-served by the president with the knowledge, savvy and temperament to push Washington forward, building coalitions at the political center. Barack Obama carries much promise of doing so. Hillary Clinton is the more proven leader.