Barack Obama would be a Better President than John McCain.

First I'll support my case and then move onto my opponent's. Barack Obama has been through a few rough patches, no hiding this - but those are not enough to stop him from being the uniter. What has happened so far in the general election has no indication on Obama's ability to unite, because his ability to unite is exhibited politically and not popularly. Popularly, there are many people who are incapable of unity; incapable of excepting a black president, incapable of compromising, and incapable of empathy. The numbers of these people are very small, but they no doubt are enough to prohibit Obama from being a uniter in the 'popular' sense. But where he unites is politically, the place that matters first for a US president. John McCain works across partisan lines like Obama does, no doubt, but where Obama goes that McCain doesn't is the gap between different interests. Obama has the ability to unite not just democrats and republicans, but the many shades of gray - the major interests - in America that don't necessarily belong to a party. I'm talking about rich and poor, working class and capitalists, and the many more distinctions that exist in America. One of Obama's acts in Senate was the Coburn(a Republican)-Obama bill, which passed to create an online database to publish all of the government's spending and can be viewed here: http://www.usaspending.gov.... This act bridged partisan lines, but also served the interests of every American by promoting transparency and accountability in the government. Obama co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama Bill, which did something that nobody had been able to do since the war in Afghanistan - unite the interests of the doves and the hawks. The Lugar-Obama bill accounts for and the reduces the number of conventional weapons that can be used by terrorists against American troops, while at the same time reducing the number of weapons in the world to appeal to the doves. This bill increases the overall security in the world in such a way that everybody can agree on, and is just one example of many of the ways Obama does politics and unites people. My opponent has brought up the question: "why can't John McCain do all of these things?" Indeed, he has similar policies on energy independence and globalization that Obama has, and a history of bipartisan politics. But there is one bipartisan stain that brings up some very strong questions about John McCain's integrity, honesty, and loyalty. I am talking about the Keating Five scandal which saw John McCain and four other senators receive money to support a bank firm. John McCain was bribed over 100,000 dollars in this scandal to support this bank which was being investigated by the Senate. First of all, where do McCain's loyalties lie? Is he not incorruptible? Like the Bush administration is excessively sympathetic to the oil industry, McCain has shown in the past that he could excessively support a single interest at the detriment of others. By definition that is divisive and not a sign that McCain is a unifier. Now as my opponent's first point says, McCain has the knowhow to "make the deal better for his side, rather than congress's side" when congress and the president disagree. If McCain were to do that, he would be just as divisive as George W. Bush who has vetoed many democratically favored bills. To be a uniter, the president and congress must find a way to agree on the bill instead of disagreeing and overpowering the other side through votes or vetoes. That is the old way of politics. Obama's inexperience is a blessing because he is not accustomed to this old way of politics. A man who is accustomed to the old divisive politics that led to slow, ineffective, and frustrating policies may be too stuck in his ways to try something new to break this country out of its rut. Obama has ten years of experience in public life too - 6 years in the Illinois State Senate and 4 years in the US Senate. Those years in the State Senate are equally valuable because they give him experience working out problems and developing his style of leadership. Also, experience and know-how are not indicative of presidential skill: Abraham Lincoln only served 2 years in the House, and he turned out fine. McCain's connections don't matter too much when one is president. When president, you are connected to everybody. Everybody listens to you. The president's main job isn't to propose legislature either, as my opponent is suggesting connections will help him with. The president sets policy and organizes the different bureaucracies (defense dept, CIA, NSA, state dept, etc) and connections don't matter there. Connections in the way that my opponent may be suggesting - through favors - is another divisive tool of the old politics. Back-room favors don't solve problems in the way they should be solved: by looking at its reality, coming up with a solution, presenting that solution to bipartisan colleagues, and working out any suggestions or contradictions to find a solution that is best for the country. Connections for political favors hurt the country by serving narrow interests and political bipartisanships, and if McCain is inclined to do those things, like another Keating Five, then he wouldn't be a very effective president. And the president is a very stressful job, no doubt, and one has got to be a good stress-handler to be an effective president. But how can you argue McCain handles stress better? A man who has many problems in his life may be capable of dealing with them all better than a man who has few. You can never know unless you have proof. Obama has never exploded at anyone or collapsed into tears on the campaign trail, or done anything to show that he can't handle stress. McCain on the other hand, is an older man, and older men have more health problems then younger men. That means McCain is the one more at risk for stress-related complications. As for Deval Patrick, Obama is running for president, not governor. Also, no two men are alike, and Obama is clearly more qualified to be running for president than Deval Patrick. But I'll take this on anyway: The disagreements between him and the Massachusetts House of Reps was over building a casino in Massachusetts - a matter of principle and not connections. Even more so, it was a matter of divisions and political maneuvering. Deval Patrick and Obama don't do things the same way. He's just a convenient comparison. Like I said earlier in this debate, Obama's unity is more political than popular. But popularly, he has inspired people to not only believe in him, but to believe in their own ability to change things. About 1 and 1/2 million people have donated to his campaign - way more than John McCain, and if that doesn't say anything about Obama's power to change this country, or his connections with everyday American people, then what can be said?