Obama vs. Clinton: What Tips the Scales

Watching some Democrats kick around Mrs. Clinton has grown into a sad spectacle.

Hillary Clinton would make a fine president and I think all reasonable people know that. She would make a better president, offering more constructive policies protecting more Americans, than McCain could ever hope to. Her problem is that Americans, in any given election cycle, can become inflamed with a true passion for change that can only exist in a country like ours. She does not represent that change as well as Mr. Obama does. In spite of her superior capabilities in many areas, Obama would still move into the White House with more foreign policy experience than George Bush had when Bush and his brother stole the election in 2000.

Americans can put up with a lot. After these past eight years, they have proven that they can put up with more than anyone ever imagined. However, that cannot hold forever.

What Mrs. Clinton has that Mr. Obama does not have, Mr. Obama can get. What Mr. Obama has that Mrs. Clinton does not have, she can never get.

Which one is the best hope at defeating McCain, who sounds more like a Bush brother with every passing day?

Comments

[quantum9leap]

Alec,
There really is too much being made out of the contest for delegates. At the current pace neither candidate is going to win a mandate. By my current mathematics,first earlier in the week the difference in delegate lead showed a difference of about 4%. From todays data I figure a difference in delegate lead of about 3.7% so that the difference has remained essentially the same. If the trend continues the difference after this charade is over will end in a very narrow difference in the range of about 4%. That is not a mandate for either candidate. What it does show is a relative tossup and strong reasons for making some very important decisions.
The nation will need a well prepared,knowledgeable,respected,tried candidate in their next president. They are going to inherit a varitable mess,hundreds of thousands of young men and women in a warlike situation,a deficit of over three trillion dollars and growing by the moment,as well as a makeup of a Congress which we cannot surmise until the general election is over.(by the way,please educate the populace that a trillion is a thousand billion,a billion is a thousand million,a million is a thousand thousands,etc. that is one hell of a lot of zeros!)
The final choice must be that the selected candidate chosen to run in the general election must be as close as possible to the best prepared for the above problems.That person will be?

[DRPike]

Obama

[elizard]

Let me be one to PROVE Obama is arrogant in what he tells everyone. I am a strong Hillary Clinton support and I will not vote for Obama. And either will my circle of friends and family. Why? For myself, I will not vote for someone I feel is not qualified to be president. He is not. He might be in a few years, but not today.

He will be swiftboated by the Rethugs and it will be ugly. Not only has he not won big states, take a very good look where he wins - places that a Dem won't win.

You put him against McCain and you just made the only hand POSSIBLE for them to win. You treat Obama like he's a messiah figure and you blindly accept the TV talkingheads who are pushing for him FOR A REASON...

Why can't all you Obama people state policies, positions, examples of where he fought hard for his positions and won?

He has LITTLE experience period, he might have a glass jaw in the big fight and all you extremists on the left ignore the strength of Hillary Rodham for various reasons including some that are misogynistic.

Thanks for stealing the best chance at real health care reform we have. She would NEVER lose to McCain. Obama might.

[Ethics101]

BUSH, CLINTON, CLINTON, BUSH, BUSH, CLINTON.

That's what you want?
I want someone's hand that hasn't been in the DC cookie jar since DAY ONE.

Obama has held elected office for 11 years (four more than Hillary). Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others. He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.
Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama's name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096. This is a long list, and it might lead you to conclude that people who say he has been doing nothing in the Senate are a little less than truthful.
Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs.

Have a nice evening.

[7NoTrumpXX]

Just like "No Child Left Behind" is a LIE on its face, your post is a lie on its face.

Where did you get these lies?

You say, "There are 890 bills in Obama's name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096." I don't have to even look it up to see that is a LIE. It would have been impossible.

If what you say were the truth, he would have had to have written a bill every 2 or 3 days and "Cosponsored" over 1 a day while the Senate is in session. He couldn't even read and evaluate that many bills, much less "write" them or Cosponsor them.

How many of those bills did he vote "present" on?

How many of these supposed bills were passed?

I'm surprised you didn't say 100% of them were passed with 100% approval by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

BIG lies are often believed, unfortunately.

[wrabbitt]

Change is something that has not happened. A majority in congress has not created any movement. The war still goes on and people get more frustrated every day! The economy is good,? Who needs to be an economist to see thru that one. All promises made by any and all politicians are lies except the one who said taxes will go up. We need to start off fresh. get rid of everyone of the crooks. and install term limits 2 /2 year terms and lobbyists only after they are out of office 50 years...

[kappa08]

"What Mrs. Clinton has that Mr. Obama does not have, Mr. Obama can get. What Mr. Obama has that Mrs. Clinton does not have, she can never get."
Crystal clear...great line.

[YogiBarrister]

Much to their credit, Clinton voters are going to fully support Obama if she loses the Democratic primary. I don't believe this to be the case with a lot of Obama supporters. If Clinton wins the primary, Democrats will lose a lot of independents who will vote for McCain, also a lot of young and minority voters who just won't show up at the polls.

[frenchie25]

You know, everyone said the same thing when Hillary first ran for the Senate (at the request of the revered Daniel Patrick Moynihan). The polls from upstate NY were horrendous. But she eked out a win mainly in the stregnth of down-state voters (NYC and it's environs). Four years later, when she ran for re-election, she carried upstate NY by more than 67%.

Why? Because she really IS in the "solutions" business. Just ask the farmers in upstate NY.

This "much hated" moniker is a creation.

[luziannagirl]

And that, frenchie25, is exactly what I hear from our Western NY relatives. Instead of "Hillary's just a carpetbagger", they say they now they hear, "Hillary's a hard worker, and she sure converted me".

And, as far as Hillary being vulnerable to media attacks via Bill's shenadigans----she's no more at risk than is yet-to-be-dug dirt on Obama, or anyone else. Everybody has closet skeletons, everybody. Bush has too many to count.

Some just get theirs exposed, while others (W in particular) get a pass.

If Obama doesn't carry with him into office a considerable majority of Congress, rest assured we'll be treated to all his skeletons.

[Dreamtunes]

I actually think that due to the disgusting job done by the republican party and Bush in particular over the past 7 years,(1 month and some odd days but whose counting?) either Obama or Clinton could beat McCain. However - as we all learned from the last two presidential elections - never underestimate the stupidity of some American voters. Hillary (for some immaginary illogical reason) is hated so much by some in the republican electorate that she could actually drive some out to vote for John McCain who otherwise may have decided to sit this one out. It's a sad state were in when this is the reason I am casting my vote for Obama.

[Redhead]

Dreamtunes, either candidate has losses. I've been working on the Hillary campaign and will continue through our state's convention. In the past two days I spoken with Hillary supporters that can't bring themselves to vote for Barack. Now my job working with the county Democrats will be to convince disillusioned Hillary voters to vote for Barack. Four more years of Bush surrogate, McCain, would be far worse than supporting any Democrat. Democrats MUST WIN in November.

[mombabytiger]

After Bush's first term, I never thought the American people would be stupid enough to re-elect him. But we did. So don't put forth the foregone conclusion that either Dem candidate could beat McCain. I find it hard to believe that a person who supports Obama could then turn around and vote for McCain. That makes absolutely no sense. Clinton's people will vote for Obama but if Obama's people will not vote for Clinton then they are fools.

[flyingbee]

Not so fast! What Senator Clinton has is years of (experience) that Obama will never get, but what Obama has Senator Clinton aready has and do not need anything from Obama. I have not heard the "fat lady"sang. The jury is out on Florida and Michigan. Obama has not won any "big states". The "South and Appalachians" will never vote for Obama. The did not vote him in the primary. Obama is as close now to the "Whitehouse" as he will ever get. John McCain is a "senior Senator" with years of experience including a "War Hero". Obama has no such experience. What war has he fought in? How did he "skipped" going to war? Who is more deserving of the Whitehouse? I think that Senator Clinton will have a far better chance than Obama. So let's wait on the democratic convention.

[standforpeace]

What do you mean, the South did not vote for Obama in the primary? Last time I looked he was busy winning Virginia, Louisianna, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia. He may not win those states in the general election, but Hillary Clinton won't either. He did win Missouri and Wisconsin -- two swing states that are critical for the Democrats to hold in November. And exactly what war did (either) Clinton fight in?

[JenKinFL]

Mark Penn...? Is that you...?

I'm still trying to get an answer for what accounts for her years of experience...

Florida and Michigan should not count because that decision was made in principle.

Ummm.... have you been to the South lately...? This primary season there has been wide turnout for the Democrats... Obama included. Unless Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana are not Southern states in your estimation.... Obama won all of them.

This had better be wrapped up before the convention of the Democratic nominee will lose in November no matter who it is.

[AgathaX]

The jury is not out on MI and FL. This is a ridiculous argument. A rule is a rule. MI and FL had a chance for a meaningful vote and didn't take it.

I agree that some deal could be worked out to help the states save face, but it will not involve overturning the result. The states that followed the rules will determine the outcome.

"War heroes" are routinely defeated by less experience candidates. Bush I, Dole, Wesley Clark (in the primary), Kerry. In fact, they are defeated far more often than they win.

In a democracy, deserving the role of president is only as important as voters think it is. And voters are not buying this.

But sure, let's wait. What else would we do.

[7NoTrumpXX]

"A rule is a rule?"

What about the Superdelegate RULE? The rule is: They should make their own evaluation, taking everything into account...not to follow the votes in the Primary...because of the unfair way the primaries are run by various States... and because the public is often fooled.

Superdelegates are there for good reasons. A candidate could elect to withdraw, be foreced to withdraw, or could die (God forbid)before the Convention. The RULE: The Democrat Nominee must get a minimum of 2000 something Delegate Votes.

Things can change in a moment. For example, the McCain scandal now brewiing.

Obama's scandals are out there if anyone wants to find them. They will be well brewed if he gets the nomination.

Look up "Obama Rezko." "Obama's 17-Year Relationship with Alleged Fixer," www.abcnews.go.com/id=4171763. "Real estate developer and fast-food magnate Anton "Tony" Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama's climb from the Illinois legislature to Capitol Hill and helped him raise tens of thousands more."

Rezko, 53, born in Syria, is now in a Chicago jail awaiting a Federal trial for "fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering for allegedly plotting to get campaign money and payoffs from firms seeking to do business before two state boards." (ABCnews)

The trial, scheduled to begin on February 25, has been postponed until March 3, one day before the March 4 primaries! I wonder why?

The Chicago Sunday Times reported that Obama received at least $168,000 from Rezko and his associates over the years.

Most states allow Republicans and Independents (Undeclared)to vote IN the Democratic Primary...and vice versa. Republicans in Texas are being urged to vote for Obama in the primary (because they think he is the weaker candidate). Is that fair?

Florida and Michgan, it could be deja vu "all over again." Frorida's primary date was set by the Republican legislature and governor. Democrats had nothing to do with it. If Florida votes are not counted, that would not be a Democracy. That would be a tragedy.

[stanblack]

The jury is not out on FL and MI. The DNC has decided the delegates are void due to the aforementioned states early primary voting. It's a shame, but, it is what it is.

[Politihal]

America keeps coming back to the same crossroads. A while back in our history, desperate, sad, frightened, hopeless and angry at our ineffective government, we went searching for our answers in a Washington outsider. His name was Jimmy Carter. ..and what a train wreck that presidency turned out to be.

Another big mistake: being charmed by the empty rhetoric of George W. Bush, the "I'm a uniter not a divider" candidate who was really the "I'm a divider not a uniter," but you won't vote for me if I tell you my truth.

Now, back to the desperate, sad, frightened, hopeless and angry American electorate who seem poised to repeat its mistakes of the past. Watching America fall prey to the narcissistic and vacuous candidacy of Barack Obama makes me desperate, sad, frightened, and angry. But I am ever hopeful that sooner rather than later America will come to its senses in this winter of our discontent and make a reasoned choice for the seasoned candidate.

Halli Casser-Jayne
Deval Patrick: A Cautionary Tale
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

[standforpeace]

Don't forget Bill Clinton. He was a Washington outsider as well (although he was a leader of the right leaning DLC if you count that as a plus).

Stop inventing artificial ways to group Obama with historical figures that you don't like or I'm going to have to start comparing Hillary Clinton to Imelda Marcos.

[liberalissima]

Dearest Alec Baldwin, I just could not have said it as eloquent as you did. Thanks

[Oldtt]

In a one-day Democratic primary for registered Dems only - following a three month campaign where all policies and ideas had to be laid out in detail to the voters - Hillary Clinton would have trounced Obama. But what would be the fun in that for the media? Much better to turn the race into a carnival resembling American Idol. After all, it's not like anything important is at stake.

[JenKinFL]

As Terry McAuliffe is working HRC's campaign, and was head of the DNC, he could have changed the rules to exactly what you have laid out here. He didn't.

A carnival resembling American Idol...? How cynical of you. Personally I am excited that people are engaged. I would have thought that 7 + years of Bush co would have wrung that completely out of the nation.

[caimone]

Bravo Alec, very well put. You are not alone in your sentiments as many Democrats here in Portland see the same truth. Senator Clinton's journey to the White House as a capable president may come yet, as I too believe she would be a capable President. However, an impressive number of Americans (myself included) are truly inspired by Senator Obama as he challenges and inspires us to hope that this country's government can once again belong to its people. Not only does Obama have a better chance at defeating (or deflating) McCain than Hillary does, but he has the intelligence, skill, moxie, experience, desire, and (seemingly) more support from other Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans to pull it off.

[Rachel36]

'Lost in Wisconsin', by Richard Adams, is a worthwhile read that gets to the core of Obama’s ‘boots on the ground’ strategic success.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_adams/2008/02/lost_in_wisconsin.htmll

[LiberalDemIda]

Thanks so much for putting things into perspective, Alec.

I was getting pretty angry hearing pro-Clinton people keep repeating - ad nauseam - "he lacks experience".

The foremost reason why I support Sen. Obama is because he had the FORESIGHT to go against the "grain" and say publicly, he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq resolution based on the evidence then presented.

This kind of foresight trumps so-called ecperience any day.

[Dots]

I, too, had the forsight to go against the "grain". I, too, was not in congress when we went to war. So what??!!

[IndyStacey]

Dots, Obama had the courage and the wisdom to speak out against the Iraq war when doing so was labeled unpatriotic. Further, he was running for office when he did it. So he had a lot to lose, but he still spoke up.

Hillary has admitted she didn't even read the NIE. So that's what!

[edayres]

Yes, Obama as President would attract capable people to advise him but the decision of which advice to take actually will rest with him. He seems too sure of his rightness and some of the press has found Obama to be aloof and arrogant. Experience allows a person to make better choices. We gave George W. Bush a chance with no experience but surrounded by capable and respected people but look at the decisions he made. Look at how unduly influenced he was by the neocons instead of the moderates. Experience matters. Only some one young enough not to know better or perhaps a person in denial would suggest otherwise.

[JenKinFL]

Speaking of too sure in his rightness... Has Hillary Clinton EVER admitted making a mistake?

[Tulka2]

Mr. Baldwin! All that and brains too...?! Good point.

[Jonny38103]

I for one appreciate this post. I have been a Clinton supporter and maybe I have supported her because I thought the 90's were pretty good and that Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians we will see in our lifetimes. He was not too liberal to get elected in America, no matter how many times the conservatives tried to paint him as a liberal. After all, I don't think that Arkansas is some bastion of liberalism in America. Hillary, like Bill, is an extremely intelligent person. That used to be regarded as a good thing in America until 2000 came along. I still believe that Clinton could debate with McCain better than Mr. Obama and I am a bit worried about this fall. I still believe Mr. Obama would have been wise to try to be Clinton's VEEP, and by doing so would gain the needed experience (especially in foreign policy/affairs/defense) to abate any criticisms in a general election.

But kudos to Mr. Baldwin. Rather than belittle Clinton as so many Dems have done (especially on HuffPo), he shows respect to a woman who has devoted a huge part of her adult life to public service and has always cared about issues that help the poor, the children, and goodness in general. Too much propaganda has been thrown at Ms. Clinton by the Republican hate machine; to see the same tactics, and disrespect in general, against a fellow Dem by Obama supporters doesn't say much about their politics of inclusion.

We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Hillary Clinton and yes, unlike many Obama supporters, who swore they would never vote for Clinton if she became the nominee, I will vote for Obama in November and pray for the best.

[nuttincowboy]

With all due respect; what experience? Sleeping with the President? Or is she really married to just another bis-bared lawyer with a great retirement plan?

[Jonny38103]

Come on, Man, it's great to want your guy to win, but Ms. Clinton has been involved in liberal issues her whole life. And if you don't think "sleeping with the President" buys you some experience, think again.