General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]karynnj
(59,503 posts)competency was given less discussion than his flaws. In the 2008 debates, he often had the clearest best answers to complicated questions - especially on foreign policy.
I don't think the discussion anywhere near as starkly different as you state. In fact, strating within weeks of the election in 2004, the case was made that HRC would be a blockbuster candidate and that only the Clintons could fight back again right wing smears -- an implicit criticism of John Kerry. Her strengths, not her flaws, were center stage. Biden, one of the other candidates who could match of better Clinton on knowledge and ability, was either given little coverage or coverage focused on gaffes or things like the plagerism claim that killed his 1988 race.
When Biden put the tip of his toe nail in the water in 2015, there were a spate of articles that were all about gaffes and negatives - even though he did a very good job as VP. In contrast, Hillary, even while SoS, as the very likely next President. It was only when she lost that people came out of the woodwork to speak of her flaws. (This is a pretty consistent, very unattractive constant in Democratic politics. If you lose, even a race that was never going to be easy, you will be attacked -- and ironically, the closer it was the more every "mistake" will be focused on as "why he/she lost".