Obama over Clinton in the the Democratic Nomination race.

My choice for the President was Senator Chris Dodd, but when he dropped out, it went to Senator Clinton. But what interests me about your argument is that you say very little about the actual issues and arguments put forth by Sens. Obama and Clinton. The focus of these debates should really be where they stand on the issues and how their voting record has been in Congress, not who their family is, or whether the candidate is a "new face" or not. But, in response to your arguments- 1) The reason that certain families can maintain their hold on the White House is because they are quite frequently competent and have enough experience to maintain such a lead. We wouldn't have these "dynasties" if the person in the White House wasn't inefficient or corrupt. Yes we may have had several Bushes in office, but given the debacle of the last few years, it is most likely that the Bush "dynasty" in the White House will crumble, thus essentially invalidating your argument. 2) Far be it from me to start espousing the far-left's drivel that the Right gets all uptight over Hillary because she is a woman. It is the tendency of the Right to get all fired up when someone on the other side has more charisma than one of their people. (Remember Tom Daschle? ) But you speak of a "dividing" line between Hillary and the Republicans when it is really Sen. Clinton that has co-authors/sponsors more bills per year with Republicans than it is Sen. Obama (1) She is, given her record, not as "ultra-polarizing" a figure as you would think. 3) Experience should be an important litmus test for the presidency. It's only the highest office in the land, and I believe that it takes more than a few short years as a junior Senator to ascend to that office. We need a president who is familiar with the corridors of power and the how the way things in Washington work. Again, optimally that would be Chris Dodd, but he dropped out regrettably. 4) It might help that Bill Clinton actually has been President and that, among many Democrats he has achieved a certain prestige of modern politics that only Tom Daschle has come close to touching. Most Democrats remember Clinton v1.0's years fondly, and those are the people who Hillary needs to appeal to. 5) If anything, it is Sen. Obama that has become a consummate mud-slinger. Remember that whole thing about Bill Clinton and the Fairy Tale issue, completely taken out of context and enitrely irrelevant to what the former president was saying. Sen. Obama recently said in a campaign ad showing clips of a story asserting that the government would assure full coverage to everybody in would have government sanctioned healthcare. The truth is that Sen. Obama would work to lower healthcare costs so that everyone COULD buy it,and that is an admirable pursuit, but it is a far cry from the universal, government health insurance that the Senator implies that he is giving. - 1) You keep making this point over and over again. Warren Harding was a new face, but he left a lot to be desired in the presidential category. James Buchanan was a new face, and some historians claim that his inaction could have led to the Civil War. I am, of course, not suggesting that Sen. Obama would lead to something so radical, I am just saying that it is nice to have candidates get their feet a little wet before trying to become our Commander in Chief. 2) Obama seems to shout Sen. Clinton's "war record" from the rooftops. But his own record on Iraq is less than steadfast. In 2004, when even Sen. Clinton realized that there was something going wrong with the war, Sen. Obama made a speech stating that "He did not disagree in any way with the way that President Bush has handled the war in Iraq. " In 2005-7 Sen. Obama consistently voted to send more money (over $300,000,000,000) INTO Iraq. Sen. Obama did not condemn the war until 2006, a full year and a half after he was elected. By this time Sens. Dodd, Clinton and Biden were all consistently anti-war with their records. (2) 3) However unverifiable that claim may be, I do respect your family's choice on the matter. However, it is interesting that you mention your "VERY patriotic" cousin from Tennesee supports him. Are you implying that your own candidate is not patriotic, just curious about your point there. And there is no "dividing influence" established by Sen. Clinton, I have said it before but it merits repeating that Hillary Clinton has Co-authored and co-sponsored more legislation across the aisle than Sen. Obama has. (1) 4) There is no "collective voice" to America, this is a land of dissent and debate, as this website proves. I can name three countries with "collective voices-" The Islamic Republic of Iran, the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 5) This is a total non-issue. Since you think that it would be "amazing" to see a man of color in the White House, I suppose you also advocated the presidencies of Revs. Sharpton and Jackson?