Granted Obama was exceptional, but to win he needed not just to be very good, but for HRC to run a mediocre campaign. In addition, he likely was helped by Edwards ending his unsuccessful candidacy before Super Tuesday.
Remember that HRC started out with puff pieces throughout the mainstream media (the right hated her, but they don't vote in the Democratic primaries. Her allies had a huge say in the way the election calendar was set -- with over 20 states on one early February day - after IA, NH, NV and SC. The design was done to benefit just one person - Clinton. Having 20 states in one day precludes candidates making their case face to face in each and every one of the states - as happens with a more spread out timeline. HRC had incredible name recognition and polled higher than anyone else.
This SuperTuesday was meant to be a wall for any other candidate. That was - incidentally her team's entire plan. When Obama came out essentially in a tie with her at that point, she was the one then at a disadvantage because he had already long before set up offices in the next wave of states and she hadn't done as much. (Mark Penn was said to have estimated that she would get ALL the California delegates with no other candidate breaking the 15% threshold. Here might be where Edwards pulling out could have helped. Edwards, himself, was polling so poorly everywhere that he likely would have been under the threshold everywhere. With him out, it became HRC vs Obama/Non HRC)
That said, I would suggest that this has nothing to do with how intelligent she is or how well she would govern. Not to mention, what it does show is that then and now, there are many very influential powerful people in both media and the party who know her well, have seen her abilities and for at least 12 years have strongly supported her eventually being President.
= new reply since forum marked as read