Are Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same?

The Nation: Despite What Fans Say, Differences Between Top Three Dems Aren't Clear

(The Nation)  This column was written by Katha Pollitt.

---

The other night I got an irate e-mail from an old acquaintance on the left. He was furious because I'd quipped in an interview that if people didn't stop making sexist comments about Hillary Clinton, I might just have to vote for her. Maybe he missed the ironic conditional: He thought I supported her. He went on to excoriate Clinton: she is militaristic and ultranationalistic; she would carry on Bush's policy of a long-term occupation of Iraq, define foreign policy around the "war on terror," support the hard-liners in Israel and promote the centrist-Democratic, left-smashing ideology of the DLC. We need to rebuild the left, he concluded, and that's why he was supporting...Barack Obama.

If you get your news from the progressive media, especially the Web, you would think large fields of ideological difference separate Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I haven't decided who I'm voting for. I would love to see a Democratic woman president; I'm not ashamed to say that. I'd love to see a Democratic black president too. But obviously - I shouldn't have to say this - what matters is what the candidates stand for and to whom they'll be beholden if elected. My problem is the three don't look so far apart to me - certainly not enough to justify demonizing one and canonizing another, as my left-wing correspondent does.

The differences seem more like branding: the strong, experienced woman; the black (but not too black) inspirer of hope; the hands-on economic populist crusader. Or if you prefer, the evil pro-corporate phony and everyone else. No sooner had Clinton announced her health care plan, for example, than my colleague John Nichols denounced it as a gift to the insurance industry. Fair enough, but this is the same health care plan that Elizabeth Edwards said with some annoyance was copied from the one her husband - the man who cares about poor people - had put forward months before. Obama's plan is similar. Likewise, on the same day that my colleague Laura Flanders wrote that an Obama campaign rally in New York City was buzzing with progressive energy, I read in The New York Times about his attempt to woo McCain voters in New Hampshire. Both these things can be true - but isn't being all things to all people a bit, well, Clintonian?

How real are the differences among the top three? Let's take a look. All three candidates want to disengage troops from Iraq while maintaining some kind of military handle on the place. If getting all the troops out ASAP is your top priority, vote for Richardson, Kucinich or Gravel. All of the top three are largely uncritical of Israel (Clinton, in fact, voiced support for a Palestinian state in 1998 and was creamed for it). Clinton probably is a shade more hawkish than the others, but all three buy the trope of the "war on terror" - in August, Obama even said he would strike Pakistan if that's what it took to capture Osama bin Laden. Maybe that was a slip or a mini-pander to 9/11 voters (well, not so mini if you're a Pakistani). He has since made more peaceful noises and followed Edwards in supporting the global abolition of nuclear weapons (a position originally put forward by Ronald Reagan, and now by Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn and George Shultz, so let's not get carried away). On domestic policy, the three have similar boilerplatish positions on education and immigration; all three are pro-choice without qualifications. Hurray! But, although nearly three in ten Americans are poor or near-poor, only Edwards has made a campaign issue out of social and economic inequality. Only Edwards seems to grasp the significance of our widening class divisions. Obama, indeed, has suggested he'll reduce taxes on "the middle class," which may be code for "expect no big government initiatives."

How tied in are the top three with corporations and Wall Street? Hillary Clinton is notoriously unapologetic about receiving large donations from wealthy interests. But Obama has received a lot of corporate and Wall Street money too - in fact, he's received more money from hedge funds than Clinton. Edwards has refused to accept donations from lobbyists (Obama soon followed his example), but this could be merely a nice piece of branding: there are plenty of ways for the interest groups’ lobbyists to put favors in the favor bank besides writing a check to the candidate.

Right now Obama, not antipoverty Edwards, has the progressive halo, even though his stands on the issues don't place him clearly to the left of his main rivals. I don't know how many people have mentioned to me that he spent four years as a community organizer. That's great, but it doesn't necessarily tell us where he's going. After all, you would not have predicted from Clinton's work for the Children's Defense Fund and her many close friendships in the liberal policy world - or even her strong speeches in support of women's rights around the globe as first lady - that she would favor the Republican-created welfare reform bill her husband signed in 1996.

If the primary were today, I might vote for Edwards, even though he sometimes seems a bit like a hologram. Or I might go for the candidate I actually agree with, Dennis Kucinich, or the one who seems the most human, Mike Gravel. However, there are still nearly four endless months to slog through: I could be won over by a candidate who just stands up and speaks his or her mind without calculating the effect of every syllable on some indecisive mini-demographic. Someone who will speak frankly about the disaster that is the war on drugs, say, or call for free college education. I would even vote for a candidate who refuses to name a favorite Bible passage on national television. "Tim," this candidate might say, "I'd be happy to talk Scripture with you over a cup of coffee after the show, but in this country religion is private and personal, and if I'm elected I'll keep it that way."

There, would-be presidents of America, was that so hard?

[sthinker]

John Edwards as a plantiff''s attorney represented "regular people" who were injured by corporate neglect or medical malpractice.

Hillary Clinton as a corporate attorney, worked on behalf of corporations who had injured or cheated "regular people."

John Edwards'' campaign manager has been a strong advocate of organized labor for over 20 years.

Hillary Clinton''s chief advisor is a union buster, and she''s backed financially by union-hating, big money special interests and lobbyists.

Of course they are not THE SAME, and your sophisticated propaganda, which implies that they are all "the same," does nothing but help Hillary Clinton politically, as I''m sure you know.

As long as voters think they are all "the same," why support anyone other than the frontrunner, right?

[sthinker]

I didn''t read the article, I just responded to the title.

I agree with the article. I should say, "anyone who suggests that they are the same" is just trying to help Hillary Clinton.

[willhodgin]

"Tim," this candidate might say, "I''d be happy to talk Scripture with you over a cup of coffee after the show, but in this country religion is private and personal, and if I''m elected I''ll keep it that way."
You''re wrong. Religion should not be kept personal and private. WE ARE A COUNTRY BASED ON BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE! In fact, our laws are based on the bible. For example: In Texas, the punishment for 1st degree murder is capital punishment through the death penalty. In the bible, the punishment for deliberately killing someone is to be killed themselves by the people. So why would you want to vote for someone who thinks this way?

[flreason]

I wish that fundamentalist Christians would stop spreading misinformation (if not downright lies) about our legal system being Biblically based.

The U.S. legal system is based on the English Common Law, which was derived from Civil Law of Rome and the Brehon Law of Ireland (thanks largely to Alfred the Great and Edward the Confessor). Roman law pre-dated Christianity, and the Brehon Law of Ireland was Celtic in origin, also pre-dating Christianity. There were also lesser influences from other sources. None of these legal systems drew on the Judeo-Christian tradition. The fact that they address many of the same things, and sometimes imposed similar penalties, says more about the universality of human behavior and effective solutions than it does about Biblical influence. You may make a case that the Creator had a hand in all human legal systems, but trying to link them to Biblical influence is trying to make butter from rutabagas - you may get something that resembles it in consistency and appearance, but it still ain''t butter.

BTW...I''m a practicing Christian, but I also strongly support the separation of church and state. The behavior of many of the current crop in Washington should convince anyone of that. As a Christian, I also believe ethics require us to be truthful, so fundamentalist preachers and adherents should stop spreading propoganda which suggests that God and Jesus support their conservative political views.

[annefrank10]

There are vast differences in the positions of the 3 candidates.
In 2003 - John Edwards voted against war funding and Blackwater. Obama and Hillary continued voting to fund the war and Blackwater - until they announced for prez.
The erroneous "2013" soundbite is an attempt to portray Hillary Hawk acceptable. ha! After the setup "2013" question - Edwards went on to explain he would remove 50K troops immediately and the remainder of combat troops within 9 months - leaving 3500-5000 to guard the embassy and perform humanitarianism.
That''s a big difference from Hillary and Obama would commit combat troops indefinitely.

[flreason]

Also BTW, most of the founding fathers who framed our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were deists, not Christians. They drew upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, but took great care to avoid linking politics and religion, even though some were personally convinced of a prophetic and Creator-ordained role for America to play in history.

[annefrank10]

After John Edwards announced he was accepting public financing - we are MORE supportive of him!
He has NEVER accepted donations from DC lobbyists and PACS - while Hillary''s campaign is driven by lobbyists and corporatists - and Hillary deciding to place her pic on the cover of Fortune Magazine which includes anti-union corporations - is a Big Red Flag.

Obama''s political career has been funded by lobbyists and PACs - from the Illinois legislature to Feb. 07. And although he''s rejected those donations for his prez run - he built a network of lobbyist donors via lawfirms - now donating to his campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401491_pf.html

While it may appear noble that he''s not accepting those donations NOW - the lobbyists and PACs KNOW who helped him climb the ladder - and will come calling.

John Edwards is not owned by anyone or any corporation! and his health care plan is more viable because of it. By the time Hillary and Obama Insurance donors "edit" their health care plans - they won''t be recognizable.

[annefrank10]

As long as voters think they are all "the same," why support anyone other than the frontrunner, right?

Exactly sthinker!! and that''s the purpose of the media''s deceptive "2013" soundbite.

[cbs_oliver]

Because of their positions on US foreign policy and other issues I will let a despised Republican become president rather than vote for Hillary or Obama.

At least the House and Senate will be Democratic - whatever that means.

I would prefer to vote for Kucinich for President but might be willing to vote for Edwards.

It is fine if a candidate wants to talk about their religious values on their own.

It is predictable, but ludicrous, for a character like Tim Russert to ask questions about those kinds of matters

[tomi1023]

CBS_Oliver, please let me know why you feel you cannot vote in the Primary for Kucinich? Since he represents what you want, why let the media tell you he can''t make it? Dennis Kucinich is more and more mainstream as Americans are realizing that they have been lied to and that the President attempts to keep himself and his cronies from being accountable. The other candidates healthcare plans continue to subsidize the insurance companies while Kucinich has a plan that allows all of us to be covered, and takes the profit out of healthcare. The choice is clear--don''t let mainstream media tell you who will be nominated. If Kucinich doesn''t make the nomination, at least you will know that you voted for who was best, and gave him a chance. So many of us are convinced Dennis is the right one, let''s vote with our hearts! He can win if we vote for him!

[cbs_oliver]

Sorry, Tomi1023, I think you misunderstood me.

I will vot efor Kucinich in the primary.

After the primary I will vote for Kucinich or Edwards if they win the nomination but will not vote at all for President otherwise.

[sparks224]

They are all too smart and competent to be president.
We don''t trust them smarty-pants intellectual types with all their science and facts and stuff.

They obviously hate America.

[rose443]

Ms. Pollitt, I must respectfully ask that you do a bit more research. In your article you said..... "or the one who seems most human, Mike Gravel". I ask that you watch the video link below in which Mike Gravel happily and enthusiastically states that we need a One World Government. He also endorses a Global Carbon Tax. The idea of a One World Government and a Global Carbon Tax are core missions of the Council on Foreign Relations. Clinton (and Bill), Obama, and Edwards are members of the CFR.

You would be well advised to do some research on the CFR before you give any member of that "organization" your vote. Keep in my *** CHENEY is also a member of the CFR and I believe it is the reason Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richrdson refuse to impeach him - they are all members of the CFR along with Cheney! While there is no evidence that Gravel is currently a member of the CFR he certainly believes and endorses their ideas.
(And he also refuses to impeach Cheney).

As for myself, I will not be giving my vote for President to anyone but Dennis Kucinich in the upcoming elections.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/123457/
Mike_Gravel_Clarifies_Globalization_World_Governance.html

VoteKUCINICH2008!
http://www.dennis4president.com/home

[sparks224]

But seriously, a candidate is either for or against Big Health Insurance. That%u2019s the dividing line for me. Hilary and Obama have sold out to them, Edwards has not.
For-profit healthcare (an oxymoron) should be made illegal.

[tha-truth2]

Don''t believe the hype!!
CBS_Oliver is a straight up Republican!!
He is trying to sway u losers into thinking that he would vote Dem.,but he is not..

He is part of a corrupt party!!
Lies,Lies,and more Lies!!
From the white house to your neighbors house,the conservative party is whats wrong with america..

Most of the "Christian Right"believe they are all going to heaven.And they are not!!

And that they are the Christain Party and have a hotline to god!! When they don''t!!

They(the republicans), as a whole(no pun intended) do need our prayers trust me..

Im sick of the Corruption!!
Tired of the Right Winged "Wrongees"..
And i still can''t believe that they expect us to believe that all of the Soldiers are behind a man whom,when it was his time to serve,Ran off and hid in bars all over Alabama!!

Give me Hillary any day..
Or give me the Green Pimp Suit that Bishop Don Juan wears anyday,than having a lying cheater of a conservative in the white house..

Go Anybody..The republicans are thru!!!

[frb01]

We can boil it down this way, the experienced Hillary Clinton, is just at the start of her second term. Edwards served one term. Obama is a couple years into his plus has State Legislative experience. In her case, Hillary''s experience is just fluff, nothing else.

[ellinorianne]

You are perpetuating something that was wrongly quoted about Edwards'' stand on exiting Iraq. He would remove troops immediately and as quickly and safely as possible. There would be not combat operations unlike Clinton and Obama. This has been completely misreported by the media and it does a great disservice to Edwards.

[ellinorianne]

You are perpetuating something that was wrongly quoted about Edwards'' stand on exiting Iraq. He would remove troops immediately and as quickly and safely as possible. There would be not combat operations unlike Clinton and Obama. This has been completely misreported by the media and it does a great disservice to Edwards.

[ellinorianne]

You are perpetuating something that was wrongly quoted about Edwards'' stand on exiting Iraq. He would remove troops immediately and as quickly and safely as possible. There would be not combat operations unlike Clinton and Obama. This has been completely misreported by the media and it does a great disservice to Edwards.

[fredgrad2000]

WOW, these CBS comment boards are virtually indistinguishable from the Daily Kos!! It must just drive you left-wing loons NUTS that despite all the money from your sugar daddy Soros and all the time spend distorting the truth with outlets like Media Matters, and making fools of yourselves on TV through shouting Code Pinko lefties, that your chosen candidates (from these comments and others, namely Kucinich - HAHAHAHAAHHA!!, Edwards, or Gravel) can''t even muster in total 15% of the left''s main constituency, the Dem primary voter base!! America does not want your blame America first, pacifist, defeatist, socialist "utopia"!! And no matter how much MoveOn spends, that''s the way it will be for the next 100 years!! And there will be 80-100k troops in Iraq, even if a Dem gets elected (because it will be Hillary if a Dem), until 2012!! It must really just burn your insides to know that no matter what you do, your looney left BS can''t get ANYWHERE with the American people!!

[barryearle]

"I could be won over by a candidate who just stands up and speaks his or her mind without calculating the effect of every syllable on some indecisive mini-demographic. Someone who will speak frankly about the disaster that is the war on drugs, say, or call for free college education. I would even vote for a candidate who refuses to name a favorite Bible passage on national television."

Katha, my friend, you have already answered your question--Dennis Kucinich. While I don''t think he has a snowball''s chance in hell of getting even close to the presidency, I''m still voting for him in the primary for all the reasons you give above. While I like Edwards, neither he, Obama nor Clinton are going to radically change between now and the primary. So the only choice is voting one''s conscience. That, for me, leaves Kucinich.

[aldee41]

The next President will be a Democrat.
Chose wisely. Chose Richardson.

[waikikiluau]

You''ve got it answered. Look no further, vote for Kucinich. Only he can truly bring a big change in America "or you can vote for a candidate who''s tall."

In some write-ups they question Kucinich: "End war. Now? Free healthcare. Now? Withdraw from NAFTA, WTO. Now?..."

Here''s what I''ve got to tell those folks, if NOT NOW, when? Why wait longer, when we can solve all of these NOW! It''s time for a Kucinich revolution. Strength through peace.

[waikikiluau]

You''ve got it answered. Look no further, vote for Kucinich. Only he can truly bring a big change in America "or you can vote for a candidate who''s tall."

In some write-ups they question Kucinich: "End war. Now? Free healthcare. Now? Withdraw from NAFTA, WTO. Now?..."

Here''s what I''ve got to tell those folks, if NOT NOW, when? Why wait longer, when we can solve all of these NOW! It''s time for a Kucinich revolution. Strength through peace.

[newroad-2009]

As a "right-to-center" Republican, I very much enjoy a well-written and thoughtful opinion, whether it be from the right or the left. This author "gets it".

[newroad-2009]

By the way, hopeful Democrats, we can all be fooled. Our side elected a Republican congress, and they became Democrats. Your side regained the majority, and they''ve let you down - politicians will, after all, be politicians.

[brianbwb-2009]

The Brian: Differences Between Top Three Dems Are Quite Clear, One is A White Male, One A White Female, And One A Black Male.

As For Policies, All From Both Parties Are Playing The Same Corruption Games, Except For The Virulent Racism Of The Republicans.

[adian1-2009]

To the writer: That you received an irate electronic mail? Come on! You only wanted to bring out the diatribe against Ms. Clinton found in your first paragraph. Seems that you are sensing that she is going to be our Democratic candidate and that she will be our next President. Your diatribe should be noted down, and it is.

[nabikov]

It seems to me you set forth a difference among the top 3: "[Obama] has since made more peaceful noises **and followed Edwards**...." "**only Edwards** has made a campaign issue out of social and economic inequality. **Only Edwards** seems to grasp the significance of our widening class divisions."

Part of the reason that they seem to look alike is that Obama & Clinton keep right on *following Edwards*.

You want someone who will "call for free college education"? That''s what Edwards "College for Everyone" will do -- that''s a staple in his stump speech; I''m not sure how you could miss that.

You want "Someone who will speak frankly about the disaster that is the war on drugs"? Perhaps you missed Edwards at the MTV forum, or failed to make the obvious connection between the "war on drugs" and the "inner city youths" Edwards spoke of when he said, "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem." Edwards sees the connection between racism, poverty, and the so-called "war on drugs" and understands that one cannot end one without addressing the other. Do you?

There **is** a difference, there is the guy who is first and the others who are following behind.

[taxguydave]

Kucinich worshipers abound. Most of them support their hero for the wrong reasons. Few have ever looked into his actual voting record.

Did you know that he has consistently voted anti-choice, and anti-free speech? Did you know that his campaign takes corporate contributions, and that Edwards'' doesn''t?

Edwards may not be proposing to march 180,000 troops out of Iraq overnight. Instead, he proposed a more realistic timeline. But he still has a plan to get us out, (unlike Clinton or Obama), and his goals are realistic and doable (unlike Gravel or Kucinich).