The Difference

Elana Schorr looks at the voting records of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the US Senate. They're similar records, but Obama's a bit too fond of coal and Clinton's a bit too fond of war. Brian Beutler says:

My sense of it is that Obama has been somewhat reconstructed from his early, coal-driven, anti-environmental days, while Hillary Clinton remains a largely unreformed liberal hawk. But I suppose it'll be hard to say how true that is until at least one of them is off the campaign trail.

I think what we see on the campaign trail actually does shed some light. Illinois has a coal industry, so Obama started out as a soft on coal guy (though hardly as the worst offender in this regard), but as soon as Obama moved toward running a national campaign, he began steadily moving to a less coal-friendly position. This doesn't do wonders for Obama's reputation as the Golden Man of Principle (see also that he used to talk more lefty on health care) or whatever, but it also doesn't suggest a deep-seated desire to see the country dotted with coal plants. By contrast, to whatever extent Clinton was driven by political expediency rather than conviction to authorize the Iraq War, it was a vision of national politics and her presidential campaign.

As recently as Monday night, after all, she was bragging to a Democratic audience that her status as a relatively hawkish Democrat makes her uniquely well-suited to taking on John McCain, whereas I'm pretty sure I've never heard Barack Obama make a parallel claim regarding the environment.

Photo by Flickr user MRE 770 used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I'll forgive Obama for his coal votes, since he represents Illinois, and I'll forgive Clinton for her vote on the 2001 bankruptcy bill, since she represents NY. But I won't forgive her Middle East militarism because she represents NY - sorry, that's just too much.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 23, 2008 10:17 AM

Hillary is certainly the neocon/Likud Democrat of choice. Her record of support for cluster blombs goes along with Israel's official support of the use of (US-made) cluster bombs in Lebanon, denounced worldwide, where there are a million left waiting for children to discover and be blown up in the process.

Posted by J.E.Dundee | January 23, 2008 10:27 AM

Hillary is confusing Beltwayland with the rest of the country. In Beltwayland, being a hawkish Democrat brands you as a Serious Person, which gets you a lot of respect in Beltwayland. In Realworldland, being a hawkish Democrat means you stand on the debate stage with John McCain and say "me too" over and over again.

Unfortunately, the votes in Realworldland vastly outnumber the votes in Beltwayland.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 23, 2008 10:28 AM

To be fair, the thinking on coal has also moved as global warming has gained more salience and as "clean coal" has been debunked as a myth. The Exelon thing is real though, and I say that as an Obama supporter. The real question now, the litmus test, is whether the candidates prefer nuclear to renewables. I have heard promising things from Obama in this regard--the commitment to substantial investment in R&D for renewables ought to be the yardstick by which we measure the candidates. Also Gore will be the final arbiter of who is the most green. Who gets his endorsement can stand on his bona fides.

Posted by JC | January 23, 2008 11:03 AM

That's how I see it as well. Almost all of Obama's "bad" votes are explained by the fact that he was voting in his state's interest. The other differences (which are mainly on confirmation votes) are simply because he holds a different principle, that a President gets to pick who works for his administration (that doesn't cover judges). That's a principle that's backed up by the Constitution and it's one I agree with.

Hillary's "bad" votes are explained by the fact that she believes Democrats need to be tough on national security to compete with Republicans. That's not a principle I agree with.

Posted by Mike | January 23, 2008 12:10 PM

Also Gore will be the final arbiter of who is the most green. Who gets his endorsement can stand on his bona fides.

If it's not Clinton, that's a big deal. If it's Clinton, I'm not sure I'd regard it as significantly.

Posted by mpowell | January 23, 2008 12:18 PM

SO: when Obama votes on an issue he is helping his State. When Hillary votes it is helping herself. Thanks for the clarification. When and where is the good Senator from Ill being enobled?

Posted by Alan | January 23, 2008 12:51 PM

Seriously, are we still discussing this?

Hillary's Iraq AUMF vote should disqualify her. Period. No Democrat should vote for her. She is either entirely too hawkish or entirely too lacking in political courage to be a good President.

Posted by bob | January 23, 2008 2:49 PM

HRC's Iraq vote could be excused if:

1) She had read the NIE report and formed a salient argument why she disagreed with it.

2) Wasn't using her *experience* in the WH as a selliing point...will she read the reports then?

3) Hadn't followed it up with her Kyl-Liebermann vote.

4) Wasn't so concerned with voting in favor based on the President should have the power...read Executive branch power.

I don't like Obama's coal vote, and I wish his instance that nuclear is off the table until the waste/water consumption was solved. I love his innovative use of technology though, which bodes well for his receptiveness to promoting/hearing new approaches, trains of thought.

Overall, which of these two candidates would do more harm to my nation? Which has the potential to be truly transformative?

No brainer...

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 23, 2008 4:21 PM

Congratulations on finding a picture of a plant with big steam towers on a cloudy day. There's not one iota of actual visible pollution in this picture. Sorry, just a chemical engineer pet peeve.

Posted by theis | January 23, 2008 5:31 PM

With all due respect--and I'm an Obama supporter--this is pretty small beer. You're left to distinguishing them on the basis of which distasteful position they have more clearly left behind.

Why don't we all just give it up, and each go for who we want to be the Democratic nominee, and, with a lot of work, the next President, and leave it at that? There are pretty large differences in style and tone and ideas of the Presidency--on which you want to have in your living room for the next 5 years (at least); on policy, as you and others have said/acknowlged, it's a matter of 5 or, at most, 15%--and this blog entry, nearly definitively, proves the point.

Posted by Wendell | January 23, 2008 10:37 PM