Senator Barack Obama is a better pick for President then Senator Hillary Clinton.

"This year has been a historical year for the Democrats. The two frontrunners are minorities. One a well known woman and former first lady. " >> Meaningless "The other a black, relatively unknown man. " >>Untrue. Obama was not unknown. He was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I'll assume my opponent meant that Obama;s private life is less exposed than Clinton's. "Though they both represent the Democratic Party in the U. S. Senate Barack Obama of Illinois is a better Presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton" >>Topic of debate "because the Republicans have less baggage to attack him for" >> Two responses here. 1) Lower likelihood of attack simply implies greater chance of being elected. It does not imply that one is necessarily a better candidate. 2) The fact that the Republicans have not attacked Obama as much as they have attacked Clinton over the course of their respective political careers does not imply that they do not have attack-worthy material. The Democratic primaries have not yet concluded. Considering this, it does not benefit the Republican party, or affiliated groups, to attack Obama yet. Most strategists would agree that it would be best to wait until the general election to unleash any personal (or baggage-related) attacks on Obama. .. or whoever the Democratic candidate may be. Surprising an opponent at the time of greatest importance typically results in a much costlier situation for that opponent. "he has won more states" >> True. What does this have to do with him being the better candidate? Many publicly-perceived poor presidents and presidential candidates have won more states in general elections and primaries. This doesn't change the fact that they may have been worse candidates in hindsight. "he has more superdelegates" >>Not necessarily true. Considering that not all of the super-delegates are pledged, no one knows for sure who has the most super-delegates. In addition, even if he did have more super-delegates, this would not necessarily mean that he is the better candidate. "he is more bipartisan" >> Not necessarily true. Obama is one of the most liberal senators in the Democratic party. In fact, according to most media publications focused on voting records, Obama may be THE most liberal senator in the Democratic party. Clinton is in the bottom half of the top 20. "represents change in an election all about it after 8 years of failed policies" >>This is a claim that Obama and his supporters have made. There is no legitimate backing to this statement. There is also no legitimate backing to the idea that "representing change" makes one a better candidate for president. "and using the count without Florida and Michigan the popular vote" >> Totally arbitrary. Who wins if all of the states Obama won are not counted? And once again, how does this determine who the better candidate is? Conclusion: My opponent uses baseless statements, meaningless facts, and propaganda in an attempt to prove that Obama is a better presidential candidate than Clinton. In addition, my opponent failed to define the term "better". Obama may (arguably) be more electable in the primaries, but this does not necessarily mean that he will perform better on the job, support better policy/legislation, or have a better cabinet surrounding him. It also does not indicate that Obama will perform better in the general election. Not only could Clinton potentially perform better in the general election, but she could perform better as a president. If she were to be able to do either, then she could arguably be the better candidate. My opponent has not proven that she would be unable to accomplish either.