Hillary Clinton is now one of America’s most seasoned national politicians, having been at her husband’s side during his 8 year term in the White House, and having been a member of the US Senate for the last 8 years. She has developed a strong grasp of policy-issues, understands how the American political system works, and how to work at different levels of government, as well as how to reach out across party-lines.

Being able to draw on Bill Clinton's perspective and experience if necessary, would help Hillary Clinton see the pitfalls of new legislation that cause many presidents to stumble out of the blocks. Barack Obama's credit card reform act of 2009 is arriving dead on arrival as credit card companies are simply canceling credit cards and forcing anyone who desires credit to accept new terms anyways. It is this kind of mistake that an inexperienced president who does not have a former president to consult with when necessary that has come home to roost.

Barack Obama offers a new voice in Washington, one not as beholden to the lobbyists and the special-interest groups which block change. Obama is the candidate for change. His popularity is due in no small part to people’s overwhelming desire for a new kind of politics. Therefore, Clinton’s experience does not do her favours; in fact it works against her since people want something different, not more of the same. In addition, just what kind of experience does Clinton actually have? We surely can’t count her time as First Lady, not least because she’s shown herself so willing to exaggerate her influence. Obama has just as many years in politics and has enacted many different bills. What’s more, he has been consistent throughout his time in politics whereas Clinton seems willing to be blown in whichever way she thinks the political wind is heading.

The race is about more than which candidate would deliver more results. It is also about symbols.

Both candidates represent constituencies that have historically been largely excluded from the political process. Blacks gained the vote in 1870 when Congress passed the 15th Amendment; women had to wait much longer till 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed.

Hillary represents the first real chance that a woman can enter this office, carrying the dreams of millions of home-makers, working-mothers, young women, and feminists on her back.

No one can deny that the Afro-American minority in the States has suffered greatly. Even after slavery was abolished after the Civil War, blacks continued to be oppressed under Jim Crowe legislation. They had less access to education, to jobs, a poorer chance of getting a fair trial, of finding suitable housing, and continue to make up a disproportionately large percentage of the US prison population.

Electing Obama would be one way of showing that the country wants to overcome this history of hatred and suspicion. It would also put someone at the top who knows what it is like to undergo such discrimination.

Hillary still has the Washington political-elite behind her. She can count upon their expertise, upon her husband's diplomatic credentials, upon loyal staff from the previous White House administration, and upon her many contacts developed through eight years in the White House and another eight in the senate.

Barack brings many talented people with him, including his colleagues from law-school. In fact, many seasoned politicians such as Edward Kennedy and John Kerrey have joined forces with him, so clearly he can attract seasoned politicians and recruit them to his cause.

Although Obama has been winning among Democrats, there is no guarantee that right-of-centre voters will vote for a black candidate. The election has been pretty mild till now, but once the Republicans begin mud-slinging, Obama’s racial and ethnic background will become a big issue. John McCain will portray himself as the blue-blooded American patriot vs. a candidate who wants to call back American troops and comes from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious family.

Actually, the Republicans love to hate the Clintons. They would be back in force to taunt them with reminders of the Lewinsky scandal, her famous remark about staying home and baking cookies, Clinton's pardon of the financier Marc Rich, etc. etc.

The race would only get uglier, ending up polarizing Americans which is the last thing anyone needs right now.

The same criticism about Hillary Clinton being too tough or arrogant would also have played in favor of the american people when it came to a president actually standing up to the banking industry.

But do young Americans vote? They have been conspicuously absent from past elections. Although they helped Howard Dean make waves initially as the most left-of-centre candidate, their enthusiasm quickly evaporated. Younger voters are more likely to be moved by opinion, and, ultimately, care less about issues such as taxes, healthcare, and housing. Their contribution is as much an identity-statement as about serious political goals.

While Clinton still represents the conventional voter, doing especially well among older men and women, Obama has been extremely successful in getting young Americans to vote for him. He has been responsible for galvanizing a new generation of Americans to think about political issues and to contribute their time and effort to his campaign.

In the long run, this could help revitalize the American polity, bringing fresh ideas, talent, and new faces into it. A political system which is still tuned to the interests of the baby-boomer generation cannot understand the needs of the new generation, and the challenges they face.

Obama is equally arrogant, claiming that small-town Americans cling to guns and religion out of "bitterness." He thinks very highly of himself, has a brusque manner with advisors which reminds one of the worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency. Although Clinton waited 8 years to make her bid, Obama did not even wait out his first senate term. He saw his chance at the top-job and took it, in spite of the fact that Clinton had more experience and had initially coached him as a new senate member. Other senate members report that Barack began thinking about the presidency from day 1, devoting more time to raising money for other senate members’ re-election campaigns and making friends, than he spent on legislative matters.

Clinton's present crisis, where she trails Obama by over 100 delegates, is her own creation. Her campaign-team presented her as the inevitable choice, ignoring the smaller caucuses and hoping to win on the strength of the big states alone.

They thought they could arm-twist donors and supporters who lacked a credible alternative. Her former campaign-manager, Patti Solis Doyle, spent over 30 million dollars of donors' contributions on her NY state re-election campaign, although Hillary did not have a serious contender.

Such mistakes have cost Clinton dearly. She overlooked the fact that individual donors are, propelled through the internet, becoming a big new force in American politics, that the internet has made American democracy more open and diffuse, and that as a result big media companies no longer have the power to "make or break" a candidate.

Obama's clean-image is largely the consequence of the fact that he is new. We don't know what he will be like a few years down the line. He may turn out to be just like the others.

There is also the issue with Tony Rezko, where Obama has been less than candid about the closeness of his contact with the corrupt financier.

Unlike Clinton, Obama has stayed away from lobby-groups, helped by the fact that his tenure in the senate has been brief. Thus, he owes them less. He has financed his campaign mostly through small contributions made over the internet, so he does not owe big companies favours. He has been pushing for a reform of the US campaign-finance regulations.

The families have experience. They have knowledge. The presidents have been voted in because they were the most suitable candidate for the job. We must also remember that McCain may win the election

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Do you really want more of the same? This era has resulted in a much richer upper class and the poverty gap in relative earnings between rich and poor has increased more than at any other time in history. This is not a coincidence. Furthermore, Clinton and Bush both attend meetings such as the bilderberg group which run counter to ideas about democratic process. They are for the SPP and the NAU which run counter to American sovereignty. Clinton has no substance and is all gimmick, a classic example would be the gas rebate ploy she used a couple weeks ago (which would not help poorer families, and that no economist agreed with). Essentially, I don’t like any of the three ‘candidates’ that we have a ‘choice’ between (Obama, Clinton, McCain) as they ALL will increase taxes for the average American. In fact, the National Tax Payers Union reported that he ONLY candidate that would save ANY taxes for the average American would be Republican candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul also calls for an end to the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS. He will also get the troops out of Iraq immediately. Indeed, Paul has received more money from active military personnel than ANY other candidate. Ron Paul is still running and his campaign has received the MOST money for ANY candidate from grassroots supporters (average American Citizens) than anyone in history. Yet most people do not know who this guy is… thanks to the mainstream media (which is owned by the super class which has benefited most from the last 20 plus years of BUSH/CLINTON presidency. This is also not a coincidence. Essentially, the election so far has been politics as usual. Distracting the attention away from the real issues which are destroying America such as the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the Income Tax. Please watch ‘America: Freedom to Fascism’ by Aaron Russo for more. It's free on google video.

Becaasrfewfkasjdhewjnvyhfcsuodfnasodfasdfsdvcxnvef;sdoczxlovsdfsdvcxvaregfgfhaewgvrfg

While the Clintons have been playing the political game for decades, Barack Obama is, as previously mentioned, a newcomer. For this particular point, I argue that such status makes him MORE likely to make the "tough decisions" that Clinton argues she is more qualified to dispense. In their years in politics, the Clintons have learned what almost every politician eventually acknowledges: to win, one must pander to the public. During his first term, Bill Clinton’s liberal policies angered political pundits across the country. His push to allow homosexuals in the military (which resulted in the compromise of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell") cut his base of support significantly early in his first term. He also implemented a massive tax increase (which passed only 51-50 and 218-216) and instituted healthcare reform. These very liberal policies, combined with foreign policy problems in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia, meant that he was politically left for dead by late 1994. So what did he do? He moved to the center. He passed the Balanced Budget Agreement and the Welfare Reform Act of 1995, the latter of which REDUCED the number of people on Welfare. The result being that he was re-elected by large majorities. In order to win a second term, Clinton compromised his very liberal agenda. Yes, I know that this example is Bill, and doesn’t necessarily include any past, present, or future actions by Hillary. She, however, spent that time in the White House with him. She, too, has spent the time in politics and made the compromises. And I will expand more directly in relation to her now. In contrast to the Clinton willingness to tell the people what they want to hear, Barack Obama has shown great political courage. This is most clearly evident in the debate over a possible gas tax holiday. While both McCain and Clinton endorsed the idea, Obama spoke against it, showing it to be the bad, though popular, policy it is. Of course everyone wants a gas tax holiday. Just recently, gas topped a $4 average nationwide. The prices are absolutely ridiculous. So, to say that a gas tax holiday is necessary and right is obviously in line with popular opinion. The problems, however, are many. First, there is no guarantee that lifting the gas tax would cause prices to actually go down. The oil companies are screwing us anyway (anyone who wants to argue that, feel free), so why wouldn’t they simply keep the prices the same and pocket the extra change? Second, the gas tax is incredibly necessary. It is what provides the funds for road construction and repair. I know that where I live, the roads would be gone after one winter-to-spring season change if we didn’t have the money to fill the potholes. Third (and I’m sorry if this sounds elitist or unrealistic), we shouldn’t be encouraging driving and gas consumption right now. Even if you don’t agree that emissions are causing global warming, our dependence on oil is deadly. Foreign oil indebts us to some of the most dictatorial countries in the world. What if there was another OPEC embargo? It would devastate out economy. Furthermore, even dependence on domestic oil is dangerous, because we will run out someday. It’s a non-renewable resource (unless you want to talk in terms of millennia), and the more heavily we lean on it, the harder we’ll fall when it’s gone. So, to return to my original point (sorry for the tangent), Obama had the courage to actually say this. It’s not what people want to hear. It’s not instant gratification. But it’s right. These points clearly show that Obama has the fortitude to institute good policy, as opposed to the Clintons’ willingness to support popular policy.