2008 Woodie Awards
Obama and Clinton: What's the difference?
Joe Caporoso
Issue date: 2/14/08 Section: Op/Ed
A common question that is starting to come up when making the important decision on who to vote for in this year's primaries and eventual general election, especially on the democratic side, is whether there is really any difference between the two major candidates?
This is a dead issue for the GOP at this point since John McCain has more or less locked up the nomination, but even if you consider Mike Huckabee still as a contender, their policy and ideological differences are clearly defined. If you are a staunch conservative, an Evangelical or Chuck Norris, you support Huckabee; pretty much everyone else in the GOP will vote for McCain.
It isn't that easy for the Democrats, where it has become increasingly clear that this will be a twelve-round fight to determine the nominee. Races that haven't been significant in recent years, like Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania now will likely determine the winner in a race that may not end until May or June.
The excitement and voter turnout in this democratic race is unprecedented, although in reality it could do nothing but aid John McCain in the general election if Obama and Clinton are really forced to slug it out over the last weeks of the primaries.
Obama and Clinton are both trying to make history as either the first African-American or female President in United States history, we all know that. Yet, beyond their differences in race, gender, and age, what else really separates them from each other?
A quick glance at their stance on the issues on the New York Times website doesn't really show a high degree of separation on anything. Both candidates want to expand health care vastly, both are pro-choice, both have similar strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both have nearly identical voting records and ideals on immigration and both have similar ideas on the economy.
The only difference appears to be that Obama has never supported the war in Iraq, while Clinton originally voted in favor of it and since then changed her mind. She also proposes a much slower troop withdrawal than Obama.
This is a dead issue for the GOP at this point since John McCain has more or less locked up the nomination, but even if you consider Mike Huckabee still as a contender, their policy and ideological differences are clearly defined. If you are a staunch conservative, an Evangelical or Chuck Norris, you support Huckabee; pretty much everyone else in the GOP will vote for McCain.
It isn't that easy for the Democrats, where it has become increasingly clear that this will be a twelve-round fight to determine the nominee. Races that haven't been significant in recent years, like Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania now will likely determine the winner in a race that may not end until May or June.
The excitement and voter turnout in this democratic race is unprecedented, although in reality it could do nothing but aid John McCain in the general election if Obama and Clinton are really forced to slug it out over the last weeks of the primaries.
Obama and Clinton are both trying to make history as either the first African-American or female President in United States history, we all know that. Yet, beyond their differences in race, gender, and age, what else really separates them from each other?
A quick glance at their stance on the issues on the New York Times website doesn't really show a high degree of separation on anything. Both candidates want to expand health care vastly, both are pro-choice, both have similar strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both have nearly identical voting records and ideals on immigration and both have similar ideas on the economy.
The only difference appears to be that Obama has never supported the war in Iraq, while Clinton originally voted in favor of it and since then changed her mind. She also proposes a much slower troop withdrawal than Obama.