Barack Obama vs Hillary Clinton on policy: what's the difference between them?

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../02/wus202.xml

Barack Obama vs Hillary Clinton on policy
By Tim Shipman
Last Updated: 12:31am GMT 02/03/2008

So, what is the difference between them?

CLINTON: Sells herself as experienced and ready to lead on day one. She promises hard work and a fight to win the nomination, to resist Republican attacks in the general election and to defend blue-collar workers as president.

OBAMA: Says America needs change in Washington, an end to partisan bitterness and new personnel. His focus is more on the power of his personality to bring people together - Democrat and Republican, black and white.

WHAT IT MEANS: Both have strong faith in the power of government, but Mr Obama's poetic message of hope has trumped Mrs Clinton's prosaic command of the issues.

IRAQ

CLINTON: An awkward embarrassment. Mrs Clinton would start withdrawing troops within six months. But her senate vote for war remains a handicap with those who now wish it had never happened. She has repeatedly refused to apologise, though she said last week she would like to take it back.

OBAMA: The big issue for Mr Obama, since he opposed the war from the start, speaking out even as he battled to win his senate seat. Claims superior judgment despite the disparity in experience. Backs a phased withdrawal.

WHAT IT MEANS: A vote-winner for Mr Obama among fiercely anti-war Democrat activists. But polls suggest the success of the troop surge would put both on the defensive against the Republican John McCain.

HEALTHCARE

CLINTON: Her signature issue, on which she has long and bruising experience. She will make every American buy health insurance, with subsidies and tax credits for those who can't afford it. Some 47 million currently have no such cover. She will require insurance companies to cover everyone who applies, even if already ill, and compel large businesses to cover their employees. Total cost: £55bn pa.

OBAMA: Will require adults to buy cover for their children but not for themselves. Instead, focuses on reducing costs so that more people can afford insurance. Stresses he would hold public meetings with the healthcare industry to avoid secret deals with special interests. Total cost: £25bn-£32bn.

WHAT IT MEANS: Mrs Clinton claims Mr Obama's plan will leave 15 million uninsured. He says she will force people to buy insurance they can't afford. Democrat voters prefer Mrs Clinton's plan but think Mr Obama's is good, too. Reminders of her failure at reform when first lady undermine her claims of experience.

FOREIGN POLICY

CLINTON: Outreach to allies. Stresses her experience of visiting more than 80 countries as first lady. She implausibly claims to have played a major role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Says "the era of cowboy diplomacy will be over" under her leadership.

OBAMA: Outreach to enemies. He is under fire from Mrs Clinton and President Bush for saying that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba and North Korea without conditions. Places more stress than Mrs Clinton on the importance of refocusing US efforts on Afghanistan.

WHAT IT MEANS: British efforts in Helmand province more likely to get a boost under Mr Obama, but he has visited Europe only once - and Mrs Clinton is closer to Gordon Brown.

TAXES AND ECONOMY

CLINTON: Cosying up to blue-collar workers. Would end the Bush tax cuts and spend the money on her expensive healthcare plan. She wants a 90 day moratorium on sub-prime mortgage foreclosures.

OBAMA: Classic tax-and-spend liberal. Also wants to end tax cuts on those earning £250,000 or more, to pay for healthcare. Advocates pumping £38 billion into the economy from tax cuts, with handouts to working families, pensioners, homeowners and the unemployed.

WHAT IT MEANS: The economy is now the top issue in the Democrat primaries and could hold the key in swing states in November's election. Mrs Clinton has the advantage here, especially among the less well-off, who are suffering from job losses and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

FREE TRADE vs PROTECTIONISM

CLINTON: Bashing Bill. The one area where she distances herself from her husband, who was pro-free trade. She says she will rip up the North American Free Trade deal (Nafta) unless it is renegotiated. The deal is now widely blamed for costing American jobs.

OBAMA: Having it both ways. Also wants renegotiation of Nafta and says companies that move overseas would lose some of their tax breaks. But Canadian papers report that his aides have told the Canadian government not to take his rhetoric at face value.

WHAT IT MEANS: Anti-free trade message will help Mrs Clinton in Ohio, but Mr Obama's equivocation may help in Texas, where Nafta is popular.

ABORTION

CLINTON: Rock solid behind "right to choose" on abortion, the traditional Democrat mantra. Would write the landmark Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling permitting abortion into federal law. Supports use of so-called partial-birth abortion, a controversial late?term procedure involving dismemberment of the foetus.

OBAMA: Although he, too, opposes attempts by constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade, Clinton supporters say he is soft on abortion. He only voted "present" - refusing to commit - when abortion laws were debated in the Illinois state senate.

WHAT IT MEANS: Republicans see both candidates as boiler-plate liberals on abortion, but the innuendo about Mr Obama was credited with losing him the New Hampshire primary. The issue boosts Mrs Clinton's standing with women voters.

ENVIRONMENT

CLINTON: Committed to signing a successor to the Kyoto climate deal. Strong supporter of developing alternative energy to boost jobs and lessen dependence on foreign oil. She boasts that America will lead when "the two oilmen have left the White House".

OBAMA: Backs a cap-and-trade programme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He has pledged to put America at the head of an international global warming partnership.

WHAT IT MEANS: Promises here can hurt a Democrat with still-sceptical voters in the general election. Bashing the oil industry is not a winner in Texas.

[Braggi]

...
OBAMA: The big issue for Mr Obama, since he opposed the war from the start, speaking out even as he battled to win his senate seat. Claims superior judgment despite the disparity in experience. Backs a phased withdrawal.

WHAT IT MEANS: A vote-winner for Mr Obama among fiercely anti-war Democrat activists. But polls suggest the success of the troop surge would put both on the defensive against the Republican John McCain.
...

This article reads like it was written by a reporter that would be a Republican if a US citizen. The real issue that matters is our adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we stopped spending and borrowing to finance that mess everything else becomes possible. I can't believe McCain still clings to the supposed success of the "surge." That success depends on our paying for and arming local militias who are just a latent liability. Once again the US media is complicit in duping the citizenry.

Read international news. Support Pacifica Radio.

We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible as completely as possible. I think Obama is the better choice in that dept. since he's less under the thumb of the Military Industrial Political Complex. At least, I hope that's the way it is.

I don't think Hillary could tell Them no. McCain is declaring he will open the wallet much wider to the MIPC. That's so dangerous. As well as his declarations to appoint ever more "conservative" justices to the Supremes. Dangerous doesn't describe how bad he is.

Once again, I'm in the Grapefruit Party.

-Jeff in 2012

I'm Jeff and I approve this message.

[scorpiomoon]

This is sizing up to be an interesting primary season. I would like to know which states have open primaries for starters. Cross over Republicans in these states may be manipulating the outcome to produce the candidate less likely to beat McCain. Also I have heard the comments that Obama is a candidate for the "smarter" voter, the more educated voter. ???.
I do admit a gender bias while acknowledging the Right wing has a complete hatred of Hill which I think is unjustified. No one has explained to my satisfaction how so much venom against her candidacy and her person started. What is it based on. I am looking at what will be thrown by McCain at whoever is running. We haven't heard too much about Obama yet there seems to be no dirt there. A little surfacing in Canada perhaps. Conveniently, this information or "dirt" on Obama were it to exist, will not come out until AFTER he is nominated.
Where his liabilities are, everyone has them, I would rather know right away, because, Karl Rove is still around, the real fight is going to be nasty, you bet!!

And, anyone preaching HOPE or too much help, for the people here over corporate interests or bigotry, while I love the sound of it, just like I loved to listen to Dr. King or
Robert & John Kennedy. Like a lovers promises. Could be true might be true, but what are the odds of it?? Here is the rub. The road to hell was paved with good intentions, so either way, I say-- we should get ready for a big brawl!!
Watching with candid simultaneous cynical optimism ?

[bird]

Well I for one, am at a total loss as to who to vote for.
So far as I can tell Clinton is "one of them" in a little bit different form.
And as for Obama, he lost my interest last week when I heard him say two very important things.
First, he stated that he would continue to employ the likes of Blackwater and other private security companies.
Second, he stated that he would continue to support what Israel is doing 100% (and I can't get behind that at all).....
Sigh......may be that it's a no vote year for me.....It's quite sad and scary to me really......
If this country were a true Democracy (one person, one vote) instead of a Republic (one person's vote "counts" toward some E.C. delegate vote), then things would probably be very different. I think this should be a topic for discussion and hopefully, change. One person, one vote....what a novel idea. Bush is pushing "Democracy" all over the world, and this country isn't even one....

Peace.

This is sizing up to be an interesting primary season. I would like to know which states have open primaries for starters. Cross over Republicans in these states may be manipulating the outcome to produce the candidate less likely to beat McCain. Also I have heard the comments that Obama is a candidate for the "smarter" voter, the more educated voter. ???.
I do admit a gender bias while acknowledging the Right wing has a complete hatred of Hill which I think is unjustified. No one has explained to my satisfaction how so much venom against her candidacy and her person started. What is it based on. I am looking at what will be thrown by McCain at whoever is running. We haven't heard too much about Obama yet there seems to be no dirt there. A little surfacing in Canada perhaps. Conveniently, this information or "dirt" on Obama were it to exist, will not come out until AFTER he is nominated.
Where his liabilities are, everyone has them, I would rather know right away, because, Karl Rove is still around, the real fight is going to be nasty, you bet!!

And, anyone preaching HOPE or too much help, for the people here over corporate interests or bigotry, while I love the sound of it, just like I loved to listen to Dr. King or
Robert & John Kennedy. Like a lovers promises. Could be true might be true, but what are the odds of it?? Here is the rub. The road to hell was paved with good intentions, so either way, I say-- we should get ready for a big brawl!!
Watching with candid simultaneous cynical optimism ?

[kristal]

It is a very unfortunate situation. Clinton & Obama only got this far because they don't support Peace, & the immediate end to the war in Iraq. Kucinich was left out of all the debates and his focus is Peace. He opposed the war.

Clinton and Obama are the same. They will not end the war. They will not stand up for what is true.

It makes it very confusing. How can you place your vote, when there is no one worthy of it?

We are in need of a great change.

May Peace Prevail.

Well I for one, am at a total loss as to who to vote for.
So far as I can tell Clinton is "one of them" in a little bit different form.
And as for Obama, he lost my interest last week when I heard him say two very important things.
First, he stated that he would continue to employ the likes of Blackwater and other private security companies.
Second, he stated that he would continue to support what Israel is doing 100% (and I can't get behind that at all).....
Sigh......may be that it's a no vote year for me.....It's quite sad and scary to me really......
If this country were a true Democracy (one person, one vote) instead of a Republic (one person's vote "counts" toward some E.C. delegate vote), then things would probably be very different. I think this should be a topic for discussion and hopefully, change. One person, one vote....what a novel idea. Bush is pushing "Democracy" all over the world, and this country isn't even one....

Peace.

[Lenny]

A lot of people did a lot of work, much of it hard, for you to vote for any of those three, IF THEY ARE NOT YOUR TRUE CHOICE.
Excuse the shouting, but politics may cause passion.