The Choice

Mitt Romney’s decision to drop out of the race appears to lock up the nomination for John McCain though it will be interesting to see how long Mike Huckabee stays in and makes McCain continue defending his conservative credentials.

The Republicans, as usual, are playing by the standard rulebook by falling in line behind a nominee early. Conventional wisdom suggests that the earlier a party chooses its candidate, the better its chances are going into the November election. The less messy intraparty eye-gouging, the better and, besides, no sense squandering precious resources fighting your friends.

But the subject du jour is the Obama-Clinton competition so let’s have at it, okay? Here we have a virtual tie between two obviously bright and politically savvy candidates both of whom would represent a historic first if elected. While many of us may feel that we’d be happy to support either one, our primary here in Wisconsin is a mere 11 days away so we can only duck the choice for so much longer.

What follows is something of a cheat sheet on the differences between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton which I thought I’d pull together as a kind of public service. Don’t feel you have to thank me but I welcome your adoring comments.

The Issues:

By most accounts, the two candidates are remarkably similar on the issues. The two issues that observers use to draw distinctions between them are the Iraq War and Health Care Reform. Even on these issues their differences can appear to some as hairsplitting since they virtually agree on what to do from this point forward in Iraq and they both support providing health care to everyone who wants it.

As for Iraq, Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of the fact that Clinton voted in favor of authorizing the Iraq War while he opposed the war from the beginning. While Clinton did vote in favor of the use of force, as did John Kerry, John Edwards and many other Democrats, she did forcefully urge President Bush to work with other countries to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein before resorting to war.

Obviously, Clinton and many of her senate colleagues voted as they did as a political calculation that to do otherwise would brand them as weak, limb-wristed namby-pambies. So much for political calculations, especially when it comes to matters of war. But, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission concluded, the key issue is what to do from this day forward and here they agree. Let’s get out as soon as possible and bring other countries in to help ensure stability.

On health care, Clinton’s experience is both her greatest asset and liability. She knows the issue better than anyone. She lead her husband’s Task Force on Health Care Reform and is largely credited with being responsible for that debacle by devising an overly complicated package and refusing to consider any compromise.

Her current proposal is remarkably similar to a national version of the Massachusetts legislation that was supported by Romney. The key provision that separates it from Obama’s proposal is the requirement that everyone have some form of coverage.

Obama insists that people shouldn’t be required to have coverage if they don’t want it or can’t afford it. This strikes many as a critical oversight since allowing people to opt-out avoids universal coverage and prevents significant cost controls. It appears to me that Obama is playing a similar political calculation here that he accuses Clinton of doing with her Iraq War vote. He seems to be ducking the label of endorsing socialized medicine while the Clinton plan is anything but that. (See Paul Krugman’s recent column in the New York Times.)

Both candidates have demonstrated an extraordinary command of the issues during the course of the campaign especially during the debates. Clinton deserves credit for being able to answer questions in remarkable detail while Obama wins points for sticking to thematic answers that connect with people more effectively than the wonkish responses of the former first lady.

Advantage: Clinton

Likability/Ability to inspire

Hands down this goes to Obama. While Clinton has many devoted followers, she also has alienated many others; Republicans, Democrats and Independents. She carries negative baggage from the grossly mishandled health care reform effort to the missing boxes of documents that suddenly reappeared during the Whitewater investigation to her transparent efforts to spin events to her advantage, for example her current morphing from inevitable juggernaut to insurgent underdog.

Obama benefits from his relative freshness on the national scene but he has also been remarkably astute at maintaining an aura of authenticity. His insistence that it’s time to reject politics as usual and embrace a new way is just spot on in tune with the nation’s mood. Hillary Clinton has come to appreciate this but her attempt to seize the mantle of change agent just can’t hold a candle to his.

The Clintons (especially Bill) have tried to goad Obama into slinging mud but he has been extraordinarily restrained in his responses. In fact, he has demonstrated a facile and sophisticated understanding of the principle of proportional force. Whether it was the Clintons’ floating of the race card and past drug use, or the theme of battle-tested, ready for the onslaught of the Republican sleaze machine, Obama has elevated his image by letting the insinuations bounce off him and splash back on her.

Advantage: Obama

Electability

The Republicans are clearly hoping that they will be facing Clinton in November suggesting that Obama has the clear edge here too. Her negatives are so much higher than his and he has been doing so much better among independents that it is difficult to imagine this not sending uncommitted Democrats flocking to Obama. The one caveat, of course, is that this kind of reasoning is what led the party to nominate John Kerry four years ago. Predictions about head-to-head contests at this point have often proven to be irrelevant. Twenty years ago, Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by nearly twenty points. ‘Nuf said.

Advantage: Obama

So let’s recap where things stand.

We may not love Hillary Clinton but we know her. She’s incredibly bright, liberal and savvy. Sure she made a mess of the health care reform initiative back in Bill’s first term but she deserves credit for learning from her mistakes. She has demonstrated an ability to reach across the aisle and build coalitions in the Senate. Though she has run as a fire-breathing liberal to stoke the base, her strength really is her incredibly sophisticated mastering of realpolitik positions and strategies.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is much less of a known commodity but what we have learned about him is very, very appealing. He’s also amazingly intelligent, articulate and progressive. In many ways, his personal story serves to reinforce his talents and confirms his ideal fit with the needs of our times.

Obama appears to offer a movement that comes along once a generation, if that often. He does seem to represent a transformative moment in our nation’s history. As impressive and competent as Clinton is, a vote for Obama seems so much more, well, hopeful. E.J. Dionne Jr.’s recent column in the Washington Post captures the almost evangelical nature of his appeal.

I prefer the more secular comparison to the language of Ken Kesey’s band of Merry Pranksters famously chronicled by Tom Wolfe in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. When the question is asked, “Are You On the Bus or Off the Bus?” how will you answer.”

When it comes to Barack Obama’s promise of a new era in American politics, principled and positive, inclusive and resolute, count me in. I’m on the bus!

Barack Obama for President in 2008!