Hi TruthSpeaksVolumes and Lunesta,

Lunesta, you said:

"I have YET to see an Obama supporter on the Frays exhibit the slightest iota of objective, critical thinking or examination."

Well, hopefully by the end of this post, you'll have to rethink your statement. I'll keep my fingers crossed that you have somehow missed all of my other posts, which (I hope) are fairly well-reasoned and articulate.

First of all, Woofer, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a quote from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. If it were in the Constitution, we might live in a very different country right now...

Second, I disagree that women "should" vote for Hillary Clinton. I think that women "should" vote for whomever they damn well please, just like every other citizen of the country.

Regarding the Lunesta quote above, I don't deny that I've read my fair share of rabid rants from Obamites here on The Fray, who make blanket statements without citing any evidence, and who substitute personal opinions for verifiable facts. However, I have also read several of these same posts from Clintonians, McCainers, and Romneyphiles (especially from Romneyphiles). With your permission, I'd like to examine some of the more-frequent charges of this type from both Clintonians and Obamites:

From the Obama side:

1) "Clinton will energize the Republican base to come out in droves and vote against her whereas Obama won't." As you say, this claim is completely unverifiable. Nobody knows whether this will happen, and we never will know, because we'll only ever see one of the two (at most) as the nominee. It is true, however, that Clinton (who has been in the national spotlight far longer than Obama) has been the object of far more Republican attacks over the years than Obama has, due in large part to receiving collateral damage from the vitriol shot at her husband.

2) "Clinton is divisive while Obama is a unifier." Both have pretty solidly voted the party line in the U.S. Senate, but the crux of this argument comes from Clinton's abortive attempt at healthcare reform as first lady, during which she alienated the Republicans in congress. Of course, she may have learned a lot since then. Obama has worked on (and, I believe, in some cases sponsored) bipartisan legislation in the Illinois state Senate. However, I get the impression that these bills were not over particularly divisive issues. So, although this is, again, a largely theoretical argument, there is some (albeit minimal) anecdotal evidence to back it up.

From the Clinton side (and if I seem better at defending these points, it's because, as an Obama supporter, I am more passionate about them):

1) "Obama lacks experience, and therefore will be a poor president." This is a logical fallacy. I don't pretend to know whether he will be a great president or a poor one, but whatever he becomes, it won't necessarily be based on experience. Everyone agrees that Washington and Lincoln were two of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had. Washington had a few years' experience in the Virginia Colonial House of Burgesses (think state House of Representatives) and served as Speaker of the Constitutional Convention (where he did not draft any language and seldom played any sort of active role). Lincoln served a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives, but became famous for a series of debates for a U.S. Senate seat that he ended up losing. Dwight Eisenhower, certainly (along with the Roosevelts) one of the most effective Presidents of the 20th Century, had NO political experience before becoming President. Thus, experience has no bearing on whether someone will make a good President, and McCain will beat either Clinton OR Obama in a contest of experiences anyway. Even should Clinton attempt to claim experience via her tenure in the White House, those claims will be marred by the poor results of the healthcare fiasco I mentioned above.

2) "Obama is all talk; he has no concrete policies like Clinton." If you take the time to look at both candidates' websites, you will find that each has an "Issues" tab, and although the issues are different, each one has a mind-boggling array of specific policy information on the topics they address (one major difference: Hillary has an "A Champion for Women" option while Barack does not; Barack has a "Civil Rights" option that Hillary lacks). Both websites are startlingly informative, replete with policy points, specific legislation, and even specific plans for Executive Orders. Hillary's seems to be a smidgin more comprehensive, but I cannot fault either of them for lack of concrete plans or lack of details on their policies (note: some of Obama's complete policies require Adobe Acrobat or another .pdf reader to view).

3) "Obama's supporters are rabid; it's like a cult." Okay, how is this relevant to his performance as President? George W. Bush had rabid fans in '00 and '04, yes, and he's terrible. But JFK had the same kinds of crowds, and I'd say he was pretty good. Reagan also was a major draw, as were Eisenhower and Howard Dean (yes, I know Dean didn't win the nomination), and I'd be hard pressed to say that the big crowds and high level of support that accompanied each of these five men said anything about how they'd eventually perform as President. But even if it does, shouldn't we want a candidate who can inspire his supporters in a major way?

From both sides:

1) "The other candidate is only winning in states that don't matter." This is malarky. Just because Clinton won California, New York, and Massachusetts, and Obama won Connecticut and Illinois doesn't mean that the other one wouldn't win those states in a general election (all have gone blue for the past couple of decades). And Obama won Missouri (yes, by a hair), and Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, and Kansas, swing states that have gone blue in the recent (within 20 years) past and may do so again. For her part, Hillary has won New Mexico (yes, by a thinner hair), as well as Arkansas, Arizona, Nevada, and New Hampshire, also considered swing states (although, since McCain is the nominee, Arizona is likely out of the picture). So this is, or should be, a non-issue.

I revert to my original post in this thread: NOBODY KNOWS and NOBODY CAN EVER KNOW which of these two would be the stronger candidate or the better President this time around. I think Hillary would be an okay candidate. I think Obama would be a fantastic candidate. But others disagree, and I can accept that...as long as the Democrats win in November.

Feel free to shoot at me now.