Hillary cannot win the election

I'll drop the Flagrant Gelatin, since we all know which election is meant. ------------------- To attack the Uncanny Koala, my opponent has simply stated that "it has not helped her much so far because she is losing" and "people don't like Bill Clinton that much anyway." First, perhaps it has helped her so far. She may be losing , but she has not lost. This debate is not about whether she is currently losing, but whether she can in or not. She can win. And Bill Clinton is very well-liked. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia: "Clinton remained popular with the public throughout his two terms as President, ending his presidential career with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. In addition to his political skills, Clinton also benefited from a boom of the US economy. Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969." http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, the Economy was great under Clinton, as is noted in the same article I just linked you. ------------------- McCain and Obama are not that formidable. Obama has very little experience, there are rumors that he's Muslim [and people are afraid of that, even though he's not Muslim anyway], there's the whole mess with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. McCain looks weird [he really does], wants to continue the war for a long time, and is a republican [people don't really like republicans that much after Dubya]. Here's the gallup poll thing for both the democrats vs. McCain. http://www.gallup.com... As we see here, Clinton does BETTER against McCain. She has the support of more of the democratic party for the general election, at least according to these most recent gallup polls. ------------------- Yes, Obama has the delegate lead. He is winning. Surely that is not what this debate was supposed to be about: who's currently winning. It's a FACT that Obama is currently winning. It's not supposed to be about who's more likely to win either, since the debate would be "Hillary won't win the election" or "Hillary is less likely to win the election than Obama or McCain." Based on the resolution, which my opponent made, I simply have to show a possibility of Clinton winning. I've gone above and beyond that, showing that she is actually _likely_ to win the general election, if she gets the democratic nomination, since the gallup polls grant her a current 2% edge on McCain, compared the 0% edge Obama has. Not only that, but Hillary has more experience than Obama, she has Bill, she has more democratic values than Obama, and she doesn't have ridiculous rumors flying around about her. ------------------------ My opponent conceded in Round 1 that it is at least possible for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination. ["Even if she wins the primaries McCain will beat her in the election."] I have shown that Hillary in fact has an edge over McCain in the general election, where Obama does not. I have shown various things people like better about Hillary than Obama, which give her the ability to possibly win the nomination. I have shown that it is very possible for Hillary to win the election. My opponent blames me for taking his resolution 'literally,' but how else am I supposed to take it? If it says "Hillary cannot win the election," then that's what you have to argue. It's my opponent's fault if he didn't write what he meant to, it's not my fault for reading it like it is.