Obama is the better candidate. Hillary would make the better President.

[ruggerson]

There is no doubt that Barack is engaging. His appeal to empower Americans has great resonance and inspires both devotion and strong passions among his supporters.

Hillary does not connect the same way he does. She is not as appealing a candidate as he is. She does not have the natural charm and ease that he does. She does not offer his bottoms up, appealing approach.

What she does have is brilliance and courage and tenacity and a very concrete agenda she wants to implement. Where his first instinct is to compromise, hers is to fight till the last dog dies. Where he would seek to heal partisan wounds in the name of national morale, she would seek to make courageous strides in policy, regardless of the partisan ire it might raise on the other side.

He is the better candidate. No doubt about it. And the argument for electability is a powerful one. She does not inspire the way he does. And the last thing we need to do is lose another presidential election.

But she has that unending courage. And the courage to be determinedly partisan and fiercely forceful when needed.

She would make the better leader.

But, the problem for Hillary: if you don't have the political skills to get elected in the first place, you cannot govern.

[gateley]

1. I wish I could take certain aspects from each of them and come up with the

perfect candidate - seriously. They both have so much to bring.

[rurallib]

2. one at a time, so we will never know

I heard Douglas Brinkley say on NPR the other day that great speakers have made great presidents.

[Schema Thing]

3. "But she has that unending courage." lol, mitigated only by that finger...

feeling the wind.


My, how different were the winds of political courage back in 2002.

[AX10]

4. She is better suited for Parliamentary democracy.

Prime Minister Hillary Clinton is more for her.

[Exilednight]

11. You hit the nail on the head. If we had a Parliamentary she would be a perfectt, but...

we're not, and she isn't.

[lapfog_1]

5. Obama is the better candidate... and the better leader. - n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. I have to agree with that. The best campaigners are often not the best leaders.

n/t

[billbuckhead]

9. Wait till the media inevitably turns on Obama and then no one will talk about

Wait till the media inevitably turns on Obama and then no one will talk about what a great campaigner he is. It's easy when the media runs interference for you, Hillary is doing a hell of job fight the media and Obama at the same time.

[scheming daemons]

10. They're too busy turning on McCain.... don't worry........

...

[Trajan]

7. Both are good candidates ....

Both are good Democrats ....

Both are worthy of our respect, and our vote ....

Tossing rhetorical firebombs against their supporters, which must split hairs to find an ounce of difference between them, seems a popular exercise here in DU ..... The circular firing squad is pretty sad ....

[Johnny__Motown]

8. Judgment counts and hers is poor, Not just the IWR but in her campaign etc

Maybe she would make the best Chief Of Staff. That way she could get in there and "run the government" in the way she described after Barack admitted that he isn't big on paperwork.

If I could take parts of each I would let him be President and let her be his Chief Of Staff.

She would be good at it. I think that her 8 years experience in the White House would be very helpful in that position.

[cali]

12. she lacks judgment and leadership skills

and we've seen that reflected in her campaign. Just the fact that she spent $33 million on consultants is evidence of poor judgment.

[ruggerson]

18. I don't buy the correlation between campaigns and how one would govern

Shrub and Rove ran brilliant campaigns that played on the very worst elements of the American psyche.

Kerry ran an abysmal campaign and simply could not connect with a lot of Americans.

Do we have any doubt whatsoever who would have made the better President?

[Exilednight]

28. I agree - to an extent. We can all agree that Bush is the worst President in modern ...

history, but no matter how much we hate him we can not argue his effectiveness in pushing through their agenda.

[Exilednight]

22. I disagree. I support Barack, but I will say that Hillary has leadership skills - she just has...

a different style of leadership. Her style is more confrontational, and after 8 years of Bush the people don't want confrontational. She would be better suited as Senate Majority Leader.

[goclark]

32. I agree ~ with her you get him

as President.

As Majority Leader she can run her own ship and he can hang out with all of his friends.

[Exilednight]

33. You put him on the air to sell the policy, you put her in the Senate to get it done.

[cooolandrew]

13. The reality is if she gets these negative in thecountry whatwould they be in congress. They seem to.

..be getting braver nowshe's losing. I really get thefeeling she is behind no impeachment. She isn't for justice and that hasbeen hercampaign are we going to lose who we are to elect her.

[AtomicKitten]

14. What she has demonstrated is poor judgment and the inability to even run a campaign.

So, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you.

[ruggerson]

23. See #18

[Starbucks Anarchist]

15. Very well said -- Technician vs. Salesman.

Both have very similar platforms, but the key is to frame the agenda and market it in an appealing way, which is why Obama has the advantage.

[mtnsnake]

16. More appealing campaigner? Possibly so. Better candidate? Never in a million years.

[closeupready]

17. I agree with this.

n/t

[sandnsea]

19. What has she fought for?

I keep waiting for some piece of legislation that she's put her ass on the line for. Nothing so far.

[NJSecularist]

24. She really fought hard with her IWR vote

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Actually, she gave a blank check to the rethugs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. For The Most Part, I Agree.

He's been better at campaigning, but there's no doubt in my mind she'd be the far better leader. Thankfully, I think he'll be a good enough one. I just have to hope he has what it takes to survive the GE warfare.

[thevoiceofreason]

21. Bullshit

Unless she had a supermajority (a possibility this session, but that would be it), she have as much success as she had with her health care initiative.

[BeyondGeography]

25. You're wrong

She's damaged goods, and by that I mean she has lived through hell and can't ever forget it. Her experience has seasoned her, but it has also left her slightly traumatized. She can't imagine that she (or anyone else) would be able to rise above partisan bitterness, connect with a broad swath of the American public and lead this country to a better place.

So she stands in a defensive crouch, waiting for the next Republican hit (at a moment when they're weakest), while he is relaxed and ready to play offense because he knows they've got nothing. On top of that, Obama has mastered the language of reconciliation, absolutely mastered it. He is inoffensive even to those who completely disagree with his beliefs because he never demeans them. He's much better for this country at this point in time and most people seem to understand that.

[Cha]

26. I smell bullshit..

hilary's a lousy senator, candidate, and I hope we don't have to find out what a lousy pres she and bil redux would make.

[tishaLA]

27. but his bottom up approach is integral to

the way he envisions the presidency working. he thinks that change starts at the community level--that it requires individual involvement--and bubbles up. so, to my mind, it is impossible to differentiate the obama candidacy from how to envision an obama presidency. likewise, it is impossible to differentiate a hillary candidacy from a hillary presidency; the way she campaigns says, to my mind, an awful lot about how she would govern.

[ruggerson]

35. That's a good point

but how is the Presidency, in a land of 300 million plus citizens, going to run, if you have a bottoms up administration? Things will be decided by plebiscite? Internet polling? I'm not being facetious, but concretely how will this be implemented and is it in line with a representational democracy?

[tishaLA]

37. I think it's about working to get people involved @ local

levels and using them as a conduit to their representatives in the house. This is the way, as someone else has said, Obama seeks not to move toward the center, but to move the center toward him. He believes that the people can reassert power over their representatives and push them toward positions that are more progressive. And if are unresponsive, they are gone. It really is a kind of representational populism (although that is an oxymoron).

[ruggerson]

40. I understand the concept

but do you think this is going to happen once the election is over? Once the excitement of the campaign has ceased, do you honestly think that Americans are going to adopt an entirely new way of governing themselves?

[Lerkfish]

36. bravo, well said. that is an excellent point

the way her campaign is run IS a valid indicator of how she would govern, IMHO. HIring incompetent advisiors at exorbitant prices, ignoring the common voter, and counting on inside the beltway jabs in the ribs to gain power.

[RBInMaine]

29. How does she lead with half the country against her already?

[TheZug]

30. Maybe the better senator or party head

It's great to be a fighter. But a president has to bring people together to accomplish anything. Look at what the last eight years have brought us. Hell, look at the last 16. Bill Clinton made a few nudges in the right direction, and then it was all torn down.

So I reject this argument on that basis, and also on the basis of her terrible management of her campaign. That has weakened her argument on experience and readiness more than anything.

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. Suppositional logic that

accords primacy to objectivity above subjectivity, however
that lacks a unbiased conclusion because of the supposition.

[MadHound]

34. I really don't think that she lacks the skills,

She was actually very engaging for the last part of the debate tonight, on par with Obama. I think what doomed her is hubris from the beginning. The entire Clinton campaign adapted this air of inevitability, that this whole primary was nothing but a formality. She thought that by doing a frontal assault on a front loaded primary she could knock everybody out and cruise to the convention. What she failed to account for is somebody still standing after Super Tuesday and having to come up with a Plan B while scrambling to replace the cash that she had lavished in the beginning.

I'm just wondering who was responsible for this train wreck, Hillary, Penn or her other advisers. Who ever it is should never be hired into a campaign again. First rule is always have a Plan B.

[ruggerson]

38. I completely agree

on the lack of plan B. I don't know if it was hubris or simply terribly bad organizational skills. If she'd had even remotely a decent ground game in WA, NE, etc. she could have probably won a few of the caucuses in Feb which would have not allowed him to gain the momentum he did. Not good contingency planning at all.

[Tatiana]

39. Hillary Clinton for Majority Leader.

If Obama does not keep his promises, she will be waiting in the wings. And I'm cool with that.

[Captain Hilts]

41. I agree completely. nt

[sfam]

42. Clearly the Obama supporters disagree with you...and at least currently,

We choose who we thing would make the better president in the primaries. So no, Obama is not winning the primaries because he's the better candidate - as if this is something disconnected with being a leader, good president, etc - he's winning them because the majority of the people believe he makes the better president.

[RBInMaine]

43. You can't be effective without the people behind you.

Half the country doesn't like Hillary. That won't change. She'll have a hell of a time accomplishing much especially if the Congress remains rather closely divided, and she doesn't do much to improve the congressional make-up because she won't be as effective in helping our congressional candidates up and down the rest of the ticket because she is so disliked in so many areas of the country.
We need someone who can unite. She has technical skills, but she is polarizing plain and simple.
OBAMA is the best choice for the ENTIRE party and the most electable nationally.

[malik flavors]

44. I mostly agree with the opening statement

I think Obama would be the better president becasue he has the vision and the ability to work with others in orders to get government working again, but I think hillary would be the hardest worker in his administration, and I would really like to see her in an important role in his administration. Not a position where they would butt heads, but a position where she could get things done on her own being a leader in her own way. I think that would be a great way for things to work out.