The Instigator
attrition
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Ennui2778
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Obama over Clinton in the the Democratic Nomination race.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 2230
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

attrition

Pro

I think Barack Obama would be the better choice for the president of the United states over Hilary Clinton.

I would like to debate with a Hilary Clinton supporter. I hope this can be positive. I think either one of us want to diaparage the other's candidate too much, lest the opponents pick win the nomination, and we would have to show support to that individual candidate. Let's say we agree on these things based on the candidates actions:

1.Does not want to stay in Iraq any more than we have to. Steady withdrawal, until very little to no troops remain.

2.Health care is a priority.

3.Education should be a priority.

4.Either one would be FAR superior to any Republican.

Things I don't like about Hilary:

1. Symbolic of the notion of dynasties in the White House. That doesn't seem patriotic. Since 1981 a Bush or a Clinton has been in the White house. So if Hilary is elected, and assuming she gets eight years, be will have had two families in the White house for 35 years. What next Jeb? Who then, freak n' Chelsea!! Im getting dizzy!!

2. Ultra-Polarizing figure. Decent Senator, from what it seems. But many Democrats love her and many, many Republicans HATE her. I mean, it's a little crazy. They get all red in the face whenever anyone mentions her. A bit obsessive. So right there you have another dividing line the center of the country. Dems vs. Republicans.!! Fight to the finish!! Divider vs. Obama's coalition building philosophy.

3. Uses the matter of her experience as the ultimate litmus test for a president. ALL the time. Experiences by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, their dullard puppet, ol' GW himself, and the rest. Help put us where this country is at today. It doesn't sell me enough.

4. Uses Bill too much.

5. Win at any cost republican like tactics. Taking quotes out of context amongst others. (This is a little low I think)

6. Status quo. No real change. Like I said, up to 35 years of two families.

Obama Pros:

1. Truly dramatic figure to represent a new face, and a new direction of the U.S. to the rest of the world and so importantly to it's own citizens.

2. Republicans can't get him on originally supporting the Iraq war ala John Kerry. Hillary can't do that.

3. Even my extremely religious conservative 68 year old mom and my VERY patriotic cousin from Tennessee likes Obama. That says a lot to me. He can reach across these artificial barriers to real progress we have in our society. The hardcore extremists on both sides, put up these barriers between the people our country. The rich get richer, the poor struggle and still get poorer. Actually more like a giant fence that stretches for eight hundred miles.

4. Wisdom, honesty, sincerity are stronger than experience. The president provides direction, leadership, vision and the ability to get people to work with him. He can help the people get their collective voice back.

5. I would be amazed to see a man of color as president and what that represents to the people of a mixed society like ours and to the rest of the world. A woman is a close second on this one. Sorry.

So let's start there.
Ennui2778

Con

My choice for the President was Senator Chris Dodd, but when he dropped out, it went to Senator Clinton. But what interests me about your argument is that you say very little about the actual issues and arguments put forth by Sens. Obama and Clinton. The focus of these debates should really be where they stand on the issues and how their voting record has been in Congress, not who their family is, or whether the candidate is a "new face" or not.

But, in response to your arguments-

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. We wouldn't have these "dynasties" if the person in the White House wasn't inefficient or corrupt. Yes we may have had several Bushes in office, but given the debacle of the last few years, it is most likely that the Bush "dynasty" in the White House will crumble, thus essentially invalidating your argument.

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. 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. (Remember Tom Daschle?) But you speak of a "dividing" line between Hillary and the Republicans when it is really Sen. Clinton that has co-authors/sponsors more bills per year with Republicans than it is Sen. Obama (1) She is, given her record, not as "ultra-polarizing" a figure as you would think.

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.

4) It might help that Bill Clinton actually has been President and that, among many Democrats he has achieved a certain prestige of modern politics that only Tom Daschle has come close to touching. Most Democrats remember Clinton v1.0's years fondly, and those are the people who Hillary needs to appeal to.

5) If anything, it is Sen. Obama that has become a consummate mud-slinger. Remember that whole thing about Bill Clinton and the Fairy Tale issue, completely taken out of context and enitrely irrelevant to what the former president was saying. Sen. Obama recently said in a campaign ad showing clips of a story asserting that the government would assure full coverage to everybody in would have government sanctioned healthcare. The truth is that Sen. Obama would work to lower healthcare costs so that everyone COULD buy it,and that is an admirable pursuit, but it is a far cry from the universal, government health insurance that the Senator implies that he is giving.

-
1) You keep making this point over and over again. Warren Harding was a new face, but he left a lot to be desired in the presidential category. James Buchanan was a new face, and some historians claim that his inaction could have led to the Civil War. I am, of course, not suggesting that Sen. Obama would lead to something so radical, I am just saying that it is nice to have candidates get their feet a little wet before trying to become our Commander in Chief.

2) Obama seems to shout Sen. Clinton's "war record" from the rooftops. But his own record on Iraq is less than steadfast. In 2004, when even Sen. Clinton realized that there was something going wrong with the war, Sen. Obama made a speech stating that "He did not disagree in any way with the way that President Bush has handled the war in Iraq." In 2005-7 Sen. Obama consistently voted to send more money (over $300,000,000,000) INTO Iraq. Sen. Obama did not condemn the war until 2006, a full year and a half after he was elected. By this time Sens. Dodd, Clinton and Biden were all consistently anti-war with their records. (2)

3) However unverifiable that claim may be, I do respect your family's choice on the matter. However, it is interesting that you mention your "VERY patriotic" cousin from Tennesee supports him. Are you implying that your own candidate is not patriotic, just curious about your point there. And there is no "dividing influence" established by Sen. Clinton, I have said it before but it merits repeating that Hillary Clinton has Co-authored and co-sponsored more legislation across the aisle than Sen. Obama has. (1)

4) There is no "collective voice" to America, this is a land of dissent and debate, as this website proves. I can name three countries with "collective voices-" The Islamic Republic of Iran, the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

5) This is a total non-issue. Since you think that it would be "amazing" to see a man of color in the White House, I suppose you also advocated the presidencies of Revs. Sharpton and Jackson?

I look forward to our debate and Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
attrition

Pro

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.)
Ennui2778

Con

Ennui2778 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
attrition

Pro

Since my opponent dropped out, if anyone would like to counter my Last Argument, go ahead and send me a challenge.
Ennui2778

Con

Ennui2778 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Ennui2778, Please at least type in a few words for you last argument so we can conclude this debate and not have to wait longer for the voting period.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
What Bill Clinton said, "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".

From the very beginning I disagreed with the media coverage of this. This is where the "race card" came from and where does he even imply that it's because Obama's black? I interpret that as a reference to Obama's energy that proclaims, "I am the true catalyst for change and am the most qualified to deliver, I am new, I am charismatic, I bring people together, I am *different."

What I see that speech as saying from Bill's point of view is, "No, he is not so different, this amazing, magical ideology he is delivering as an inspirational speaker is inaccurate and his voting record is why."

I was nearly outraged when the race card was presented because of this, it serves to alienate the blacks who do support Hillary and all because of a meritless claim of passive racism.
Posted by Ennui2778 9 years ago
Ennui2778
Regrettably, circumstances unforseen will prevent me from continuing into future rounds. I concede this debate and will be absent from the site for an extended period of time, I thank you for your consideration and ardently apologize for this absence. I do hope that we will be able to debate some time in the future when I am not thus occupied.

Once more, I apologize, and great job with your debate.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Obama quote regarding voting for war funding:
"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there." You say that like Hilary didn't do the exact same thing. She also voted for the war in the first place, can't spin that.

However, it is interesting that you mention your "VERY patriotic" cousin from Tennesee ..

--This is in reference to the idea that being Democrat and anti-war is somehow unpatriotic to those Ultra-nationalists that seem to think that nothing America does is bad and support war efforts unflinchingly.

And there is no "dividing influence" ..

--I think I have more than adequately refuted this argument with links discussing the contrary. Also, simply through personal experiences and various anti-hilary emails, videos, etc. I think this point is self-evident. Hilary is very stong with some staunch Democrats and it's base but bi-partisan support she does not have, unlike Obama

4) There is no "collective voice" to America, ..

--Those governments are extremely the opposite of giving their people voices. This is a silly argument. The government of the United States is supposed to speak for it's entire people, not exactly half, this is what is meant by "collective voices" We will never get every single person to agree on every single issue, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't speak for the vast majority.

5) This is a total non-issue. Since you think that it would be "amazing" ..

--Personal opinion of course. Sharpton and Jackson are candidates that mostly speak to their own race. This isn't what I want. Obama is nothing like these two people. Sharpton and Jackson, the Dennis Kuccinich's of blacks.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
2) Obama seems to shout Sen. Clinton's "war record" from the rooftops. , Sen. Obama made a speech stating that "He did not disagree in any way with the way that President Bush has handled the war in Iraq."

---I searched all over the internet for this quote, could not find it anywhere independently of Hilary. Please provide a direct link to that speech. I did find that quote on a Pro-Hilary website,(http://facts.hillaryhub.com...) but that is not at all the same thing, referring to an interview with a Chicago Tribune (which incidentally is endorsing Obama) reporter before the DNC. The entire article isn't linked and isn't completely clear what he is referring to exactly. You and Bill, called it a speech and even Hilary's own people say it wasn't a speech and thusly mis characterized and taken out of context. Obama was referring to the administration's take on keeping troops in Iraq at the time. Obama agreed(as does Clinton)that to pull troops out completely at that time would have been a mistake. We screwed it up, so we must at least try to fix it. Troop withdrawal is now necessary.

Barack on this issue:

http://obama.senate.gov...

NPR article about this issue: http://www.npr.org...

Media Matters link: http://mediamatters.org...

In 2005-7 Sen. Obama consistently voted to send more money (over $300,000,000,000) INTO Iraq. Sen. Obama did not condemn the war until 2006, a full year and a half after he was elected.

--Obama's 2002 speech against the war: http://usliberals.about.com...
Posted by Ennui2778 9 years ago
Ennui2778
No problem, take as long as you want.
And our simple opening of this discussion on a public forum did invite Mr. jholtzapple to this discussion.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
I am working on posting my debate. It is long, not complete and as of right now not posting even though it is less than 8,000 characters, 7,940 or so...but still. I tried to trim the size as much as I could to make it still a worthy rebuttal. Sigh. I had no idea I would make it this long.

Oh, and Mr. Two-Guns, no one IS asking you ..so uh, yeah..
Posted by jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
If you were to ask me niether of them are cut out to be president.
Posted by toria_2metal 9 years ago
toria_2metal
clinton 08'

she is by far, a strong canidate.
she is a woman of strength.
Posted by Ennui2778 9 years ago
Ennui2778
(1) thomas.loc.gov
(2) factcheck.com
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tepman45 9 years ago
tepman45
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
attritionEnnui2778Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30