Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

Obama is a very inspirational speaker and talks very often about how come "United" is in your country's name and how come bipartisanship should be a goal to work for. However what a poltician says and what (s)he does are not always the same thing, and his policies/views hardly can be considered "moderate". Most importanlty of all he is inexpereiced (not a word that applies to Clinton) and will fare very badly with this lack, especially if he is going head to head with a GOP vetern like McCain. Than again people know the name Clinton, they know that her views storngly resemble her husbands and most importanlty of all people remeber that times were prosperous in the 90's and woulnd't mind seeing a return there to. Also many people in the US are sexist and will vote for Clinton becuase they want to see a woman become president, not another white guy like McCain or Obama (okay maybe most people dub him black, but the point remains that there are more women in the United States than ethnic minrities). Clinton also has a far better organizational structure, more politcal connections that will yield finer bureaucrats than Obama ever could hope to have and people know this. According to most polls, they show Clinton will have a far easier time winning against the GOP candidates than will the mulatto. Your turn Cooper. I agree, if Clinton fails, Obama will. That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate though. "Also many people in the US are sexist and will vote for Clinton becuase they want to see a woman become president, not another white guy like McCain or Obama (okay maybe most people dub him black, but the point remains that there are more women in the United States than ethnic minrities)." Turns out, that more women voted for Obama than Clinton in the Iowa caucus. And most people dub him black...BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. Just because he doesn't act like a thug from the bronx doesn't change his skin color. To quote the great theologian David Letterman, "How more black can he get? He has to dunk?" He is black. "linton also has a far better organizational structure, more politcal connections that will yield finer bureaucrats than Obama ever could hope to have and people know this. According to most polls, they show Clinton will have a far easier time winning against the GOP candidates than will the mulatto." I would first like to know which polls you are talking about, and then, I would ask you to look to who won in Iowa. Who got second in Iowa, and then who got third in Iowa. In case you don't want to, Obama got first, and Hillary got THIRD. Not even second place for her. You also fail to argue my points about uniting the republicans. I have shown how the republicans are seperated. No one knows who of the top five republican candidates will win. Democrats really only have two. Republicans are eager to jump ship, and we see this with the approval ratings of the president. They are officially under ten percent. And that isn't just of democrats. It's of the nation. So republicans are tired of a republican president. This means they will be willing to vote for a democrat. But not just any democrat. I say that they will not vote for Clinton. She is much too "radical" for a republican. Republicans are willing to change, but not that much. You also say that inexperienced is not a word applied to Clinton, but I disagree. It definitely isn't applied to Bill, but to Hillary it definitely is. She has done what exactly? Have you looked at her record of voting while she has been in Congress? Have you looked into her at all? Maybe you should try it before you discuss how "moderate" and "experienced" she is. There was a debate tonight, I don't know if you watched it. But Clinton's views on everything were strictly democratic. I mean that as in party, not type of government. Now granted, Obama was still democratic, otherwise he wouldn't be a democrat, but compared to Hillary and the other not-so-hopeful-hopefuls, he was much more conservative. You say that the Clinton era was a good era, but I say it is because he didn't have any real issues facing him. He didn't have a war, and Hillary will. Even if she chooses to pull out, which she already has said she won't, then "era" still won't be as prosperous as her husbands. She has immigration to deal with that is much worse than that of her husbands. Slick Willy's era was the calm before the storm. He got lucky, and the next president, got screwed. You fail to answer any of my original arguments, and make some of your own, which I clearly have refuted. That is why I should win.