Obama over Clinton in the the Democratic Nomination race.

My choice for the President was Senator Chris Dodd, --- I my second choice would have been Biden. I actually really like him, and I think if he had ran in 2004, he might of had a real chance. This debate is both about their voting record AND who they are as people and what they can do for this country. I think Hillary has an elect-ability issue that can't be over looked. If the GOP is smart they will put John McCain as their nominee. He has a broad independent voter pull. Hell, I even like McCain a little. I wouldn't ever vote for him, especially after cozying up to the religious right in the form of Jerry Falwell, and GW's war policies amongst other things. The Hilary vs. McCain race would do the following: Excite the entire republican establishment to not vote FOR somebody, but the vote would be cast AGAINST somebody they truly despise. I am willing to bet that you won't tell me I am wrong when I say the far right truly dislikes Hilary, and many in the center don't particular like her either, certainly against the alternative McCain. So McCain has tried to get back in to the good graces with the religious right, the NeoCons, and the independents. Some in the republican party would stay home because they don't like McCain all that much, if Barak is the candidate, but not if Hilary is the other choice. Read these articles: http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.nytimes.com...? ex=1359176400&en=b00861dd0b986aca&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Even Karl Rove wants to see Hilary as the nominee, because of exactly what I said. After all we have been through, we can't let another Republican run the White house. "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." --Would you call the current Bush White House competent? "We wouldn't have these "dynasties" if the person in the White House wasn't inefficient or corrupt." ----I think this quote makes my case more than it does yours. Perhaps you worded the statement wrong, but you seem to say that a dynasty candidate would be inefficient or corrupt. Hilary would be a dynasty president, and the way Bill is so close to the campaign it would be like Bill getting a third term. Totally unconstitutional. Sure, they would say it's not the same, but obviously there would be influence. Yes we may have had several Bushes in office,... ---Certainly this particular Bush dynasty will crumble. The American people seem to have a short memory. It's theoretically possible that Jeb Bush could run in '2012 or '2016 and win. Let's not make that same mistake we did with GW and do it the opposite direction with Clinton. I am so tired of the same old politics that we have already seen and been through. At the risk of being cliche', we need something fresh, new and representing REAL change. 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. --Are you saying that the far-left say the Republicans are aginst Hilary simply because she is a woman? Please clarify. 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... ---No offense, but this is a weak argument. Please provide us with specific legislation that Hilary co-sponsored with republicans. The same could be said for John McCain, such as the Campaign finance reform bill. He is know for reaching across the aisle. This is not what Hilary is known for, she is viewed as completely partisan and liberal in the consciousness of this country. Self evident by the Republicans for Hilary movement. Link to at least one Obama, republican co-sponsored bill: http://obama.senate.gov... 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. ---I will again point to the fact that many in the Bush administration had many years of experience in Washington. Obviously this is not a good indicator of the type of president any one person would be. It tells us they know how Washington works. We don't need another insider to keep the status quo intact, we need a fresh look and a new start that only Obama can provide. It seems to me that Washington doesn't work the right way and stating one knows how Washington works, implies they intend to keep that machine intact but work through it. I want it to be dismantled and put back together properly. Another thing Obama represents. 4) It might help that Bill Clinton actually has been President and that,.. ---I don't discount the effectiveness of Bill Clinton's presidency. What about the Kennedy prestige among Democrats? Kennedy is going to endorse Obama. (http://www.nytimes.com...? ex=1359176400&en=c0a66017d42d5628&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) I agree that Clinton needs to appeal to those people, but that won't win the white house in the current political climate. Many republicans, rightly or not, view the Clinton years with disdain. Hilary even said, Bill isn't running I am, not an exact quote but the gist of the argument. 5) If anything, it is Sen. Obama that has become a consummate mud-slinger... ---Bill Clinton quote, "You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. There's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen". This is exactly how old politics is played. The under tone of a statement that can be explained away as not specific on the overall intent, but none the less hints at the crux that nominating Obama is just a dream that can never happen presumably because Obama is black and isn't an establishment figure. I would like to see evidence that Obama is the "consumate mud-slinger". Obama must defend the legitimacy of his candidacy, it has always been Clinton starting arguments and playing typical Washington political attack games, that Obama can't just sit back and let happen. Do a google search on Obama attack Clinton, vs. Clinton attacks Obama and look at the results. Now tell me who is the consummate mud-slinger? Sen. Obama recently said in a campaign ad showing clips of a story asserting... ---Link to Barack Obama's health care plan: http://www.barackobama.com... The difference is allowing people to make a choice to have health care or not. Unlike mandatory coverage offered by Senator Clinton. Barack's plan is to lower the cost of health coverage and make it available to all people, giving people choice. Children however have mandatory coverage. His plan is more palatable to the Free Market proponents, once again allowing for further reaches into the Republican base. 1) You keep making this point over and over again. Warren Harding... ---It's hard to compare these former presidents with Obama, I know very little about them or their politics. The same could be said for experienced presidents getting us into wars. This argument does little to further your cause. (8,000 characters wasn't enough to respond to your full argument. Comments section finish the argument. I apologize for going over the limit, but it seems rather arbitrary anyway. Feel free to do the same.)