The top point in support right now is, "Edwards' main draw was a focus on poverty and class, bringing him blue collar worker support. Clinton has been racking up the union endorsements (Farm, Steel, AFCSME, etc.)"
The top counterargument is, "She has been part of the establishment that Edwards speaks against. Obama really is from outside Washington, having been there only since 2004."
Edwards' main draw was a focus on poverty and class, bringing him blue collar worker support. Clinton has been racking up the union endorsements (Farm, Steel, AFCSME, etc.)
Obama has more life experience, having lived in other parts of the world and having worked as a community organizer. Clinton spent her whole life in politics.
Being able to "hit the ground running" isn't all that matters. She needs to be able to lead and lead in the right direction, but she hasn't shown ability to inspire like Obama.
A fresh post:
(Boost this post if you think it is a good argument, even if you don't agree with it.)
0 people have reported this post.
To report it, login first.
2
Jan 31
2008
pico
The issue isn't whether Clinton has experience, but whether Edwards voters will be drawn to her. Edwards' political experience is closer to Obama's than Clinton's.
I support Hillary. As soon as Obama got to the U.S. Senate, he started running for President. He also plays the race game. He only talks a good game, but accomplished nothing.
Obama has accomplished a lot. He sponsored lobbyist reform, which is helping to weaken the stranglehold that corporate america has on our political system