Anonymous (not verified) says:

Here's the thing -- neither candidate is particularly electable, even against Mccain, but Obama is even less so. "Obama for President" has become a religious calling and his followers swoon for him (some literally). Women fainting, men crying, applause for meaningless words.... As a presidential candidate he lacks substance and has little to no real plans. His followers are drinking his kool-aid without really stopping to ask what's in it and that's a problem.

HRC, on the other hand, has actual experience and a background in the political system. That's not to say I really care for her as a candidate either, mind you, but at least there's some substance there. As others have mentioned, she's carried large states that matter in a general election whereas her competitors have carried those that are less critical and would likely go to the Republican candidate anyway. She's not the BEST candidate but she's a far better choice between the two.

The Democrat party needs to seriously sit back and ask if they want the White House this election and if the answer is yes, they need to run Clinton. (Of course, an even better choice would be Gore but that's a different discussion.)

Reply

The content of this field is kept private
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.