|
Obama and Hillary have nearly identical policy papers -- so you've got a point in that respect. Obama simply has attributes that seem to inspire people and he's young. Clinton may have more practical skills but she has two problems: her camp is known for over-controlling the message (shades of Bush2) and to the young she may be yesterday's news.
Neither politician is "left" (unless you're viewing them from somewhere to the right of fascism).
90% of blacks are not necessarily voting for Obama (where's that statistic from?).
I don't recall any quote of Oprah being anti-Clinton because she's female, cite please.
My opinion is that Obama is simply better at generating energy because his speaking style has that "revival oratory" style. Both candidates are highly qualified. They're both centrist. I'd vote for either.
The best example I can think of happened before most people on this forum were born: the Kennedy and Nixon debates of 1960. On paper, it wasn't that dissimilar a choice ... but when they were on camera together ... Kennedy's oratory style just slam-dunked Nixon.
Imagine Clinton vs McCain and now imagine Obama vs McCain..... to a mild extent that is Clinton's problem vs Obama --- that young energy factor. Yes, totally garbage reasons but real.
Now if you want to complain about the stupidity of the general voting public.. .well be my guest. It is appalling to listen to many people's rationale (or irrationale) about their voting choices.
|