Like mcjoan and many other Democrats and denizens of Left Blogistan, I find myself less than completely thrilled by our two remaining candidates for the presidential nomination. I wanted more--and this year, it seemed like I had a realistic shot at getting it.
I'm fully cognizant that if, as seems quite likely from current polling numbers, trends, and other indicators, either Barack or Hillary wins the 2008 presidential election, he or she will make history as either our first black president or our first woman president. I would have to characterize voting for either one of these candidates solely or primarily on the basis that s/he will make history if elected as being among the more fundamentally galactically stupid ideas I've ever heard. And believe me, I've heard some pretty stupid ideas in my time.
Follow me below the fold and we'll dig into the specifics.
Obama's supporters routinely allege that he is far and away the most liberal/progressive candidate the Democratic Party has entertained in recent memory. I call bullshit on that claim, too. There is no way to put Barack Obama in a group with people like Mike Gravel, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich and have Obama come out looking more liberal than anybody else in the crowd. I think one could even make a reasonable claim that Obama is less liberal than notable figures of the not-too-distant political past such as Pat Schroeder, Sargent Shriver, Christopher Dodd, or Howard Dean. Even Republican "Fighting Bob" La Follette looks more liberal than Obama in numerous ways.
For my money, there is little difference between the positions of Barack Obama and those of Hillary Clinton. What differences there are, I maintain, are mainly cosmetic and of little consequence. Let's look at a few statistics first. As I've previously pointed out, they both received identical scores of 89% from the Human Rights Campaign in its 2006 congressional scorecard (PDF link). For all that the National Journal recently named Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, if you look at the 99 votes they considered in arriving at the rankings, you'll notice there are only two instances where Clinton's vote differed from that of Obama (not counting the--far too numerous, in my estimation--instances where one or the other of the two did not vote): Clinton voted against the establishment of a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators last January, and against allowing certain immigrants to stay in the United States while renewing their visas in June, both positions the National Journal disagreed with (or so I presume, since they colored her vote in red). Both Clinton and Obama voted in favor of a sense of the Senate resolution last March that funds for U.S. troops in Iraq should not be cut off, a position the journal also disapproved of. Obama and Clinton both receive scores of 100% from NARAL for their records on choice for women. Ditto for Planned Parenthood. Obama gets an 80% from the ACLU in the 110th Congress (he voted against the Bennett amendment to the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act, which would have regulated paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and either did not vote or was not counted on lifting the global gag rule and voter ID requirements). Clinton received a 67% rating from the ACLU (she also voted against the Bennett amendment, and also voted to table an amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 that would have removed Real ID compliance provisions from the act; she also did not vote or was not counted on lifting the global gag rule, although she did vote against the voter ID requirements proposed by Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, which Obama missed). Obama got a 96% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO in 2006; Clinton's lifetime rating was 93%. Obama got a 95% liberal quotient from Americans for Democratic Action in 2006 (Dick Durbin got a 100% rating that year); Clinton also got a 95% quotient. (They both voted in favor of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, which ADA opposed.) Obama got an 85% total for the 110th Congress from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (PDF link), though LCCR gave him a 100% rating on "all positions"; Clinton also received an 85% total for the 110th Congress, though her "all positions" ranking was only 92%.
So neither one has a terrible record by any means, but there is definitely room for improvement on both their parts. According to the Washington Post's database of congressional votes, Clinton has missed 105 votes (23.5%) in the current (110th) Congress, and has voted with the Democratic position 97.1% of the time. Obama has missed 168 votes (37.7%) this Congress, and has voted with the Democratic position 96.4% of the time. Again, not much of a difference between the two, although Clinton has the better record when it comes to showing up to vote.
Looking at their profiles at the WaPo's site (it's easier to make the comparisons from there than it is from the campaigns' respective websites; Clinton's profile is here, and Obama's is here), I see that Clinton raised $26 million to Obama's $22.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2007. Obama spent close to $41 million in the same time period, to Clinton's almost $40 million. Clinton had a nearly 2-to-1 edge in cash on hand (ca. $38 million to Obama's ca. $19 million), though Obama reportedly raised $32 million last month. Clinton's campaign has yet to release its January fundraising numbers, but I doubt there will be any significant difference in the two totals--certainly not a big enough difference to dent her advantage in cash on hand. Clinton has been endorsed by 98 of the WaPo's 584 state-level officials, to Obama's 57. Now let's look at some issues.
Health Care
Obama does little to tinker with the present complicated web of private, job-related, and government coverage. He will create (without specifying how, or how he will pay for it) a plan to extend coverage to those that are currently without insurance, and mandates coverage for all children. He would require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan. Clinton's plan allows people to keep current coverage if they like it, or they can get coverage (if they don't have it) or switch to a plan like the one currently available to members of Congress or something like Medicare. Both candidates propose providing tax credits as a means of assisting people to buy the health insurance they're talking about. Neither candidate supports a single-payer plan, meaning that what they're actually talking about is health insurance, not health care.
Social Security
Neither candidate favors privatization of Social Security. Obama has said that "everything has to be on the table that is genuinely intended to strengthen the program," which seems to mean he's open to tinkering with everything about it. He has specifically noted changes in both benefits and the tax structure. Clinton wants to establish a "bipartisan process" (whatever that means) to examine the program's long-term challenges, and supports "a range of modest fixes to strengthen the program."
Iraq
Both candidates support beginning to withdraw troops from Iraq almost immediately. Obama would maintain what he calls a "follow-on force" in and around Iraq "to protect ongoing U.S. interests there, including counter-terrorism operations, training and force protection." Clinton, by contrast, said that if she were president, she would "withdraw our forces from the sectarian fighting. There will be no American soldiers refereeing a civil war. No more combat patrols in Baghdad." Both candidates support increased diplomatic engagement in the region to promote stability.
National Security
Both candidates list ending the war in Iraq and continuing the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan as their top two national security priorities. Both candidates more or less say that their third priority in this area is rebuilding the U.S.'s network of alliances. Obama adds a global effort to secure, destroy, and/or stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Climate Change
Both candidates want to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 80% by 2050 (Clinton is technically calling for a reduction to 80% of 1990 levels by that time, which is a far more realistic goal than reducing carbon emissions altogether by 80%, which is what Obama is pushing for). Clinton wants to cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030; Obama only wants to increase fuel efficiencies in automobiles (by 4% per year) and to promote the manufacture and purchase of more fuel-efficient hybrids. Obama's stated position on climate change is...interesting, to say the least, given his noted support for so-called "clean coal" technology (Illinois having one of the larger coal reserves of any state in the nation). Clinton mentions "clean coal" on the energy issues page of her campaign site, whereas Obama makes it a feature of his, saying he will "...significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies."
Immigration
Both candidates favor immigration reform. Both want to increase border security, and both want to provide a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the United States currently. Clinton wants to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Obama supports the development of a mandatory national electronic database that employers could use to verify the legal status of job applicants. That this is tantamount to a national identity card system is something Obama very carefully does not mention. Clinton appears to allude to a similar system on her immigration issues page, but the language is vague in comparison to Obama's forthright statement on the WaPo page calling for a "...simple, but mandatory electronic system that enables employers to verify the legal status of the people they hire."
Jobs and Economy
Both candidates make the same (largely empty) promises about bringing high-wage jobs to the U.S. Both support moving toward a balanced budget and restoring the pay-as-you-go rules that Bush and the Republican Congress gutted when they took office in 2001. Both candidates would roll back the Bush tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 per year.
Education
Both candidates say the same thing about No Child Left Behind--it seemed like a good idea when it was first proposed, but its implementation has been faulty and needs to be fixed. Obama wants to get more teachers into the classroom. Clinton wants to do more to support college students and to ensure that all children have access to preschool.
Gay Marriage and Gay Rights
Both candidates oppose the proposed "family" marriage amendment that would enshrine discrimination against LGBT citizens in the Constitution by defining "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman. Both candidates support civil unions as opposed to equal marriage rights, although Clinton says she believes that "...gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans." Both support ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Both support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, though Clinton wants to leave the question of marriage up to the states to define and so only wants to repeal the section of the act that defines marriage, in federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. (That's the most important section of the law to get rid of, however.) Clinton has a paid liaison to the gay community on her campaign staff (as well as several other LGBT staff members). Obama does not.
Other Issues
Both candidates support Roe v. Wade, see a role for the federal government in seeking an end to poverty, support some gun-control measures, and oppose the current federal ban on embryonic stem cell research.
Six-to-Five and Pick 'Em
I'd be interested to see anyone find a truly substantive difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on any of the issues I've described above--or any kind of substantive difference between them. Which is just one of the many reasons I am less-than-enthusiastic about finding them the only two Democratic candidates for the presidency left standing. (Yes, I know that Mike Gravel is still in the race. However, I have about as good a chance of winning the presidency as Mike Gravel does.)
It has been alleged that my opposition to Obama's candidacy has entirely to do with his position on gay rights issues. That is manifestly not true, as the simple expedient of clicking on the Obama category at my blog would demonstrate. I first expressed my reservations about an Obama run for the presidency on October 23, 2006--the day after Obama first announced he was a candidate. Why? Because in doing so he broke a categorical promise he made to me and every other Illinois voter who sent him to the Senate to represent us, and because he really didn't (and doesn't) have the kind of experience I want to see in a presidential candidate. That was also a full year before the infamous Donnie McClurkin flap.
I'd be lying if I said that McClurkin wasn't a factor in my opposition to Obama's candidacy. It is. It further demonstrates that Obama is really not ready to be on the national stage. He routinely makes boneheaded mistakes like inviting McClurkin to headline a fundraising concert even after howls of protest went up from a very reliable Democratic constituency (the gay community) over McClurkin's abominable stance on sexuality and homosexuality in particular. That was a n00bie mistake, one that a more seasoned campaigner would not have made. The McClurkin incident also suggests, at least to me (though I am hardly alone in this, judging from the storm of protest raised by the incident in the gay community), a distressing apparent willingness on Obama's part to abandon his admittedly very pretty words about gay rights and against homophobia when he feels there is a political advantage to be gained by doing so. (The same can probably be said of Clinton: but she is not pretending, and neither are her supporters, that she will be the neatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to gay rights.) But that's hardly the only reason I'm underwhelmed by Obama.
There is also, as I pointed out last May in a post from my hotel room in the suburbs of Paris, Obama's atrocious foreign policy manifesto in the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, in which he tries to pre-emptively out-macho even the Deciderer, calling for an even bigger military (and a concomitantly larger military budget), and refusing to renounce unilateral use of military force--including, it would seem, pre-emptive unilateral strikes when he perceives that our vital interests are threatened. That was, of course, exactly the rationale invoked by the Boy Who Would Be King when he wanted to get his war on in Iraq. You know, the war that Obama has been at pains to remind everyone he was against before he was for funding it each and every time Bush came to Congress with hat in hand.
That was followed up, just two weeks later, by the news that Obama had been getting "mentored" on foreign policy by none other than Colin Powell. Suddenly, a lot of what had appeared under Obama's name in Foreign Affairs made a lot more sense, given that Colin Powell is a Republican, and much of Obama's rhetoric in that manifesto in Foreign Affairs sounded a lot closer to what we're used to hearing from the other side of the aisle than we are out of the mouths of our party members.
So Why Not Clinton?
That pretty much wraps up why I'm not thrilled at the prospect of having to vote for Barack Obama in November. So why am I not enthusiastic about Clinton? Largely because, as I've just demonstrated fairly exhaustively, there's only the slimmest bit of distance between them and their policy positions. They are both middle-of-the-road (and leaning more toward the right side of the road than the left) centrists. They're both incrementalists, neither one of them is willing to go very far out on any limbs--especially when doing so would cost them potential support from voters or donors. Clinton has a long-established reputation for being a triangulator, just like her husband was when he was in office. After eight years of the Bu$heviki, I don't want to triangulate (and I want even less to reach out to the people who were responsible for those eight miserable years: I just want to push them the hell out of the halls of power and make damned sure they don't get in again for a good long while). I want to push back. I want to restore the balance of powers enumerated in our Constitution. I want to undo all the grants of special rights and privileges to the wealthy, the white, and the heterosexual. I want to do away with signing statements, with any whisper of a hint of a scintilla of a twinge of the idea that torture could be considered legal under any circumstances, or that it has any place in our arsenal of interrogational tools. I want to do away with warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, and I absolutely do not want to grant immunity--whether retroactive or proactive--to any companies that assisted the government in carrying it out.
And so I find myself, just days before I will have to step into a voting booth and make a decision about which candidate to vote for (or whether to vote for any of them) in the presidential race, largely ambivalent about the choices that are left to me. That is particularly distressing when I consider that at the start of this election season, I felt pumped up. I was excited about the choices available to me. One by one, however, the candidates whose positions were closest to and most representative of my own dropped out of the race. The media only had time for the horserace stories, and since they seem to abhor complexity of late, they can't handle a horse race with more than two runners in it. They've gotten that horserace now, but I feel the poorer for it. And I know I'm not the only Democratic voter who feels that way.
(Cross-posted, with some modifications, from my blog.)