Obama vs. Clinton - the great debate begins!

Loyal Frökspoke readers will have by now guessed that I am following the U.S. 2008 Presidential election as closely as I can. And, in the interests of full disclosure, I confess that at this (still very early) stage of the game, I think Hilary Clinton is the most apt to win the 2008 general election, and is also the best choice for the Oval Office. Politically, I think she is the most electable; normatively, I think she is the most Presidential.

My good friend Warren, a colleague of mine from Waterloo, disagrees with this analysis. On his excellent blog, A Deliberative Dialogue, Warren has promoted Barack Obama as his choice from the current Democratic field. And because Warren is almost as eloquent, thoughtful, and humble as myself, I thought this would be the perfect opportunity for he and I to engage in a deliberative dialogue of our own: who is the more electable candidate? Clinton or Obama?

Warren has agreed to the idea, so he and I will be making our cases via email, and publishing the correspondence on our respective blogs. Hopefully this will stimulate some reader commentary and a thoughtful analysis of the candidates, the electoral process, and contemporary American issues.

Let the discussion begin! Here is my initial letter to Warren, establishing the terms of the debate. Warren's initial arguments to follow.

I think the thing to do would be to have the debate via email, and then publish the correspondence on our respective blogs. Sound fair? The question: who would be more electable in the 2007 general (not primary!!): Clinton or Obama? Or in other words, what will be the more electable characteristic: having experience? Or being a "force for change"?

I tend to think Clinton is the more electable candidate. So if you disagree, I think we could have a fun debate. Very respectful, of course.

Let me know what you think. Take care, -Ray