The rules are simple.  Two candidates from which to choose to represent the Democratic Party in the race for office of the President of the United States:  US Senator Hillary Clinton or US Senator Barack Obama.  No write-ins, no declarations of "neither".  Only those two candidates, and if you respond you must choose one.

Furthermore, please explain why you prefer one candidate over the other, or even why you like one less than the other.

For the sake of full disclosure, as I mentioned in the "Super Tuesday" thread, I've been elected as a pricinct delegate to the county and district caucases in the upcoming months.  I'm eager to see any and all arguments for or against both candidates.

!i!

IF I was a Democrat - I'd say go for Senator Obama.

BOTH he and HHillary Clinton or equally inexperienced, all things considered. However, Barack Obama has energized crowds and is drawing NEW voters into the mix. Can't say the same for Hillary.

Also - several times during the debates, she tried to get various digs/jabs in on him - and Barack was not rattled and even turned some of those barbs back at her.

Thats a GOOD sign, and an indicator of a style of self-confidence that Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to have a lot of times.


 Realistically, the Democrats have a better chance of winning in November if Barack Obama is their candidate.

 I'd would've said the same thing in my "Election as Spectator Sport" thread.

- Ed C.

Obama is killer PR on the international stage. Millions of people who think the US has a thing about brown people may have to change their thinking.

I haven't got a detailed enough picture of the US electorate to say which one would truly fly best at home.

I say Obama.

Why?

Most importantly to me is the cutting off of this whole "legacy" presidency thing.  

Yes, I think Mrs. Clinton is quite capable of running the country but thanks to the monkey-fucker in the driver's chair now, I have a very dim view on anyone who has had the slightest whiff of the paint from the Oval Office from even the most slightest of prior visitations to their parents/spouses/etc. in the past from getting into the CIC's  spot from here forward.  

Fool me once, assholes; remember about that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," thing?  I sure as hell do.  And Dippy Dipshit up there right now isn't making too many solid arguments against that chestnut either (in my opinion).

I honestly think we are getting into the realm where this "professional" cadre of "public leaders" is starting to smack too much of the "nobility" that Americans seem to crave so much, but my own pessimism colors my opinions too much sometimes, I fear.  

Hell, I'm starting to think we seceeded 130 or so odd years too early too.

Eh.  I've said enough.

Obama looks like the better candidate. Mrs. Clinton has party embeddedness going for her, but that also makes it hard for her to work against entrenched interests. A candidate less entangled in party commitments and past history is sometimes needed. I have no illusions that Obama would be enough to reimagine the Democratic party, but he is probably a good start. Likewise, the Republicans would benefit from a McCain nomination and a shot of more economic and less social conservatism.

On a purely personal level, the Clinton and Bush dynasties have ruled the U.S.A. for 20 years as of 2008. Enough already. Time for a change.

Hmm, tough choice.  Both are equally experienced (or inexperienced), as mentioned upthread, but Hillary seems more conniving and ruthless, and thus more likely to get her agenda pushed through, which makes me lean toward Obama.

On the other hand, having Hillary as candidate would do much more to galvanize the opposition, I believe, which makes me lean toward her.

In the end, I'll have to pick Obama, since Hillary has already had her eight years as co-president.

Obama.  

Time for change.  20 years of Bush/Clinton family "politics as usual" dominance does not make me yearn for 4 more years of it.

Stop trying to scare the public into voting for you.  " a vote for my opponent is a vote for the terrorists/facists/far left nutbags/far right nutbags/tax and spenders/spend and spenders/..."  

Obama at least has a more optimistic message.

plus he won a Grammy...   heh.

Obama.  Pro fat blunts.  'nuff said.

Good article here:

What Happened to Obama?

Quote from: droogGood article here:

What Happened to Obama?

Apparently I need to subscribe to read the entire article.  Can you summarise it in brief?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaApparently I need to subscribe to read the entire article.  Can you summarise it in brief?

Kleinzahler thinks Obama won't get the nomination this time or the next, but may be around for a long time. He thinks his main problem as a candidate (but also his main asset) is that he doesn't offend anyone. O. is the boy your parents would be glad to have come to dinner: educated Harvard.

Hunh.  Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.  An interesting take.

!i!

I say Obama.

#1- The whole experience arguement is bogus. There have been several presidents elected that had little experience in washington before being elected. Some have been good, some haven't but that's about the same deal with experienced presidents.

#2- Obama really does want to change things and I think he means it where as Clinton just seems to be saying it because she knows that she needs to to be elected as a Dem.

#3- Obama is a great speaker. Sounds like a dumb reason but if you look at the worlds view of US since GW was elected you notice over the last eight years we have become a country run by an idiot in their views. Clinton isn't bad but not good.

#4- Foreign policy. Obama is willing to negotiate and will take into account the opinions of other world leaders. GW has destroyed all respect some countries had for us with his cowboy poltics. Clinton has said little of what she would do to improve our worldwide relationships.

#5- He's much more electable than Clinton. Polls have been showing from the begining that Obama will win by near double digits over any of the repulicans where as Clinton has been shown to be losing to McCain.

#6- Seems more likely than Clinton to work in a bipartisan way if elected.

Quote from: Mcrow#3- Obama is a great speaker. Sounds like a dumb reason but if you look at the worlds view of US since GW was elected you notice over the last eight years we have become a country run by an idiot in their views.

To phrase this in less inflammatory terms (not that I disagree), popular perception worldwide certainly seems to have swayed to the notion that we are a nation content to be led by an inarticulate underachiever.  There's a lot to be said for a charismatic, inspirational leader at the fore, both good and bad.  Assuming he's promoting a vision of optimism and rejuvenation, that could do wonders for a very uncertain nation, and the way in which it is perceived by other nations.

Of course, actions will always speak louder than words, again for good or ill.

!i!

I'm a Democrat who actually would see a McCain win as not altogether bad--at least potentially--but I plan to vote for my party's nominee in November.

I hope that Obama gets the nomination for two reasons which are basically one. He's not a divisive figure the way that Hillary is, and I believe he has better political instincts even though Hillary probably does have a bit more policy experience. In the general election, a Hillary candidacy will bring a large number of conservatives back into the Republican fold who are currently talking about abandoning the party, and she may also lose independents who (unlike the right wing) don't viscerally hate McCain.

Also, if elected, Hillary risks further polarizing the nation, and ultimately weakening the Democrats, not only because of how she's viewed but also because I think she's likely to push her agenda in Rovian fashion, freezing out the opposition and working to put together just enough of a majority to achieve a maximal position.