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

It is not my responsibility to prove that Senator Clinton is the better candidate, but rather to prove that Obama is not necessarily the better candidate. If I prove that one of the following is possible, then I win this debate: 1) That it is not possible to know for sure; 2) That the candidates are equal; 3) That Clinton is better; 1) My opponent has now changed his stance from 'Obama is relatively unknown' to 'Obama is relatively unknown amongst the politically uninformed'. The Democratic national convention is one of the most visible stages for a Democratic politician. The large majority of people who pay attention to politics follow the happenings of the DNC. In addition, my opponent's comment that 'his vting record was unknown' is also not completely true. Voting records are publicly available. Everyone has access to them. The only points here are that Obama has not yet been the focus of vicious political attacks by his opponents, and that he has much less experience in national politics relative to his opponents. Neither of these points lend credence to the argument that he is a 'better' candidate. 2) Al Gore never brought up Willie Horton. This is a false claim. The Bush campaign brought up Willie Horton during the GENERAL ELECTION (aka 'not the primaries'). Al Gore simply opposed a furlough program that Dukakis supported in his own state. Big difference. Opposition on policy does not equal vicious political attacks. And it definitely does not equal political attacks based on personal lives. In addition, it does not benefit Clinton to attack excessively on a personal level, as this, strategically speaking, could be detrimental to the Democratic party's and her own progress. Either way, none of this proves that Obama has no issues in his private or political lives that cannot be used against him. 'The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. ' 3) My point was never to discuss past candidates, but rather to show that candidates who win states do not necessarily perform better on the job, or perform better in the general election than in the primary (this is impossible to know). Winning states does not necessarily make you a better candidate. My opponent failed to define the term 'better' in the Topic or in his initial argument, and now chooses to attempt to define it here. Winning states MAY make you a more popular candidate (although even this can be argued, as we operate in a representative system). Popularity does not directly translate into skill, vision, foresight, intelligence, staying power, etc, all of which could be argued as making someone a better candidate. 4) Until superdelegates endorse or pledge themselves to a candidate, the actual number for each candidate is unknown. My opponent is likely using estimates from a media publication. Once again, even if he does have more superdelegates, this does not mean he is a better candidate. Refer to my point (3). 5) My opponent states that Obama is 'more bipartisan', yet only discusses Obama's political actions, and no opposing actions by his opponent (Clinton). It has been well-documented that Obama's US Senate politics (as have Clinton's) have been more liberal than the large majority of senators. And once again, how does being 'more bipartisan' translate into 'better'? And lastly, Campaign finance is still a prevalent issue in politics, and corruption is difficult to quantify. Obama has not 'ended corruption in campaign finance'. Another false claim. Regarding the death penalty on a national level, Clinton has actually sponsored more bills and taken part in more reform for capital punishment than has Obama. Another false claim. 6) My opponent has simply summarized portions of Obama's various stump speeches in an attempt to reflect how Obama 'represents change'. Propaganda does not represent change, it merely insinuates it. Obama has not shown beyond a doubt, through his past political actions or otherwise, that he represents any real 'change' or paradigm shift, aside from the ideal that he utilizes to broaden his support. Whether he will actually 'represent change' remains to be seen. It may or may not happen. My opponent's main argument relies equating popularity with 'better'. My opponent has failed to prove how being more popular makes one better. He has also failed to prove how Obama is any more competent, intelligent, visionary, experienced, or qualified than Clinton. As such, the only possible conclusions from this debate thus far are that either we don't know who is better, or that the two candidates are equal.