Clinton vs. Obama

Hillary Clinton has already made history as a great senator and can guarantee and efficient and organized great Democratic presidency
By Lara Coulter

The biggest mystery of the 2008 presidential election is not whether John Edwards will vouch for either of the remaining Democratic candidates, if Bill Clinton could possibly do any more damage to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, or if Mike Huckabee has a shred of sanity and sense of reality left.

The most prevalent cliffhanger remaining lies in the final days of the battle for the Democratic nomination between Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton and which of the two will grab the ultimate victory and continue on the road towards becoming President of the United States.

It’s a fight between the sexes, races, charismatic abilities and true substance. But in the more desirable and determinate debate of who would make the best president, Hillary Clinton reigns victorious.

Despite her overwhelming qualifications to her opponent, Clinton has endured a recent long string of losses in state primaries. Reflective of an AHS student poll conducted the same day as the Potomac primary, Obama was revealed as the overwhelming student majority favorite with 58% of the overall vote. Obama also simultaneously defeated Clinton in the Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. primaries.  Since then he has also gained victories in Wisconsin, Washington, and Hawaii.

It seems that a glitzy personality overshadows solid solutions and credentials to many voters. One cannot deny Obama’s incredible ability to inspire the masses and unite liberals and independents alike. But what is there to brag behind this glamorous front?

Many commend Obama for his oratorical power and strengths in articulating even the simplest statement into a lyrical masterpiece. They mistakenly believe that this is simply enough of a basis to determine his potential to become a great leader.

Obama has not yet proven his abilities as a leader, and now is not the time for guessing games and simply hoping a leader lies somewhere under that thick layer of charisma and magnetism. The always charming George W. Bush had the identical “I’ll-learn-as-I-go-along” attitude, and look at the disastrous results of his presidency.

Ultimately, if Obama’s biggest strength is his speeches, then his speechwriters, whose genius makes them the true creators of Obama’s star-like quality should be running for president instead.

Years from now, when Obama is a seasoned Senator and well experienced in politics, he will most definitely make a great president, but at this point in time our nation needs more than general promises that mean nothing when made by someone who does not posess the political knowledge gained from experience to carry out these promises effectively, if at all.

I prefer someone with a little more than simply a desire to change our nation. I want someone who knows exactly how to immediately best create that change effectively and swiftly. Hillary Clinton is just the person.

Clinton is more qualified than Obama to be president. She is thoughtful, engaging, and more practical and detailed in many of her opinions on issues where her and Obama disagree. She has an incredible and undeniable understanding of foreign and domestic policy. She can dish out facts and figures to support any argument, which coincides with her invaluable attention to important specifics. She has completely changed the image of the first-lady position, and has already created vast improvements to our nation as New York’s Senator. And when it comes down to it, Clinton simply knows more than Obama.

But the most amazing thing about Clinton is her capability to withstand the unbelievable amount of personal and sexist criticisms that have surely pierced her emotionally. Throughout all the pain and hurt, she has kept going and maintained her poise and pride.

Voters: you don’t need to agree with everything Hillary Clinton stands for. And don’t vote for her simply because she’s a woman. Vote for her because when the glamour and cameras are pushed aside, Hillary Clinton  will make a better U.S. President than Obama.

laracoulter@cox.net



Barack Obama has united the nation under the promise of better days through change and a newer generation of politics
By Jonah Williams

With the race for the GOP nomination pretty much over, with McCain emerging the victor, the nation’s attention is now turning to the very close race between Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.In their years in the senate, both senators have taken remarkably similar stances on nearly every issue put forth.  However, there are several differences that show Obama to be the better candidate for the Democratic nomination.

Obama’s style of politics is a refreshing change from the norm seen in Washington that is often corrupt.  Some have claimed that he is too young and “inexperienced” to be the President.  Another way to look at it is that he hasn’t had time to become corrupted by the current system. 
One example of this is Obama’s refusal to accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees. 

In April of 2007 he returned $50,566 in contributions to over 49 sources when they were identified as coming from lobbyists. This shows his refusal to become corrupted and indebted to these organizations. 

In contrast, according to Opensecrets.org, a website designed to make the sources of candidates’ funds available to the public, as of December 31, 2007 Clinton has accepted $959,719 contributions from various lobbyists and political action committees. This should raise the question about whether she is now in debt to these contributors.

Another topic for consideration is the war in Iraq.  Obama gave a speech in 2002 that publicly denounced the war in Iraq and was one of the few to foresee the complications that were bound to arise from blundering into a war.  When speaking about the war in 2002, Obama predicted the war would be “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.”

On the same vote, Clinton voted for the war. This is evidence in itself that there can be no question about the integrity or capacity of Senator Obama’s judgment.
The environment is another significant area of concern when analyzing the candidates. 

When Senator Clinton decided to run for president, her feelings about the use and research of ethanol as an alternative to oil quickly reversed. She is on record having voted 17 times against legislation promoting the use and research of ethanol including the amendment to the 2005 energy bill that would have created a mandate for the use of ethanol in refineries. This raises the question of why the sudden change?

One theory is that with her new bid for the presidency, she did not want to alienate any potential voters in the extremely crucial primary state of Iowa who would be significantly affected by legislation dealing with ethanol. This is because their economy is based heavily on the production of corn, from which ethanol is created. 

In contrast, in 2005 Senator Obama voted yes on the very same amendment and has consistently been pro-ethanol use.  Again, Senator Barack Obama shows a consistency that indicates that he is voting for what he feels is right for the future of the country and not for any other reasons. 

After the numerous shortcomings of the current administration, the American people are looking for a change. Obama is the perfect candidate for the job.  He is a new face with new ideas and a promise of immediate change. 

Both candidates are qualified for the job but when analyzing some of their smaller differences; Obama appears to have better judgement and less political baggage than Clinton.

jonahwill@aol.com