Hillary Clinton and John McCain are the frontrunners for their respective parties' presidential nominations in 2008. I was going to joke about their diplomatic exploit (Beer Pong anyone? or Boris Yeltsin asking 'Why wasn't I invited?'), but I started to wonder: as Commanders-in-Chief, would they really govern differently?
On the surface, their contrasts are abundant. Hillary is the classic overacheiver: valedictorian at Wellesley, turned Yale-educated lawyer, turned healthcare and education advocate. McCain was a lackluster student who followed his father into the Navy, spent six years as a POW, and ran for the Senate under the mantle of Reagan Republicanism.
But the personal relationship they have apparently cultivated aside, these two individuals, who have created niches for themselves in the American political 'center,' may in fact be the same type of President. Both supported the invasion of Iraq, and continue to argue against withdrawal. Both voted against the 2003 tax cuts. Both are pro-free trade. Both would work towards a balanced budget. Both support campaign finance reform. Both have spoken out against global warming and are pro-environment. Both support stem-cell research. Both are against gay marriage bans. Both are moderate on immigration. Both would reign in Bush's executive power abuses, McCain more specifically on torture and detainee treatment.
The greatest differences? Abortion, where McCain has said he would have voted for the South Dakota ban on all abortions, with exceptions. And education, where McCain has been an advocate of charter schools. Yet on most of the major issues, McCain and Clinton are two peas in a pod.
http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com