Hillary vs. Obama - Which

Hillary vs. Obama - Which One Has the Best Plan and Best Chance?

It is a bit less than a year away from the 2008 "primary season," when Democrats and Republicans will hold state-wide and regional elections to decide who their party's standard-bearer will be. As for the Democrats, several of their candidates are already tuning up for the big concert, especially Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. These two not only are dominating the media spotlight so far, they are engaging in bitter fights over several issues.

Veterans of political campaigns will calmly explain to the supporters of both candidates that the heated accusations coming to light now are nothing new, and that there's a long way to go. Those experienced observers will add, though, that serious missteps - even at this early stage of the political season - can doom even the sharpest candidate. So both are being advised by their paid consultants to fight the good fight, but don't say or do anything too radical that can come back to haunt them in an attack ad later down the line.

Both candidates have strong followings and both express positive philosophies about how the U.S. could be an improved nation at home and abroad, it may be too early for many people to decide which one of them would do the best job. They are both mavericks, they are both iconoclastic in their passion to not only lead the country but to break long-standing barriers of race and gender.

In the end though, the two most pertinent questions are: who deserves to come out on top? Which of the two has the fewest negatives and the most staying power?

THESIS: Hillary and Obama are both far more progressive politically than the current administration, but they both need to be more specific in their proposals, and they both need to give the middle class some reason to believe that American will thrive under fresh new leadership of the kind they offer. But at this time, I believe Barrack Obama has the best opportunity to win and to lead the country because Hillary has too much baggage. All the conservatives and ultra-right-wing pundits are gearing up to go after her with a massive negative ad campaign; there is a documentary in the works that is funded by the same deep pockets folks who brought the successful "Swift Boat" attacks against John Kerry in 2004. Also the chance of a woman being elected (breaking the gender barrier) is not as believable as a man of color, which Obama is, breaking the color barrier. it's still a man's world when it comes to politics, sad to say but true. Also, in an age of television-fueled campaigns, Obama indeed has ebony-colored skin, and he is African-American, but his skin is more on the side swarthy rather than the deep black of some African-Americans. Again, sad to note this image issue is real, and that he's an easier sell than an African-American with deep dark skin, but indeed it is.

Indeed, old cultural prejudices die hard, but so does the bias against women having power. Remember, the right to vote wasn't given to women until 1920, which was 144 years after the Declaration of Independence asserted that "...all men are created equal..."

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: For starters, Obama seems to have a better grasp of how important the health care reform issues are to voters than Hillary does. This is ironic because in the first Bill Clinton Administration, Hillary helped to develop an in-depth proposal for universal health care coverage, and spoke eloquently in testimony before Congressional committees about the Clinton plan. Notwithstanding the fact that her plan never got off the ground (Congress wasn't ready for a federal commitment so massive), impartial observers, and health care advocates, had high praise for the First Lady's efforts and her courage.

Health Care] but on the subject of the 2008 campaign, and health care, an op-ed piece in the New York Times (Krugman 2007) claims that "...only John Edwards" among the leading Democratic contenders has a "specific proposal." Others, including Obama and Clinton, have only "vague generalities," Krugman asserts; albeit, he adds, that Obama has some "wonderfully uplifting generalities."

Where do the two candidates stand on health care issues? A look at their Web sites offers some concrete clues about their positions on this issue. Across the top of Obama's Web site (www.barrackobama.com) are the links to "Home," "Learn," "Issues," "Get Involved," "Blog," "Newsroom" and "Donate." Across the top of Clinton's Web site (www.hillaryclinton.com) she offers links to "Home," "Hillary," "Take Action," "Newsroom," "Blog," "Video" and "Contribute."

In terms of substance put forward on health care and other national issues, Obama wins hands down on his Web pages. In Obama's "Issues" pull-down, he offers 11 links to issues that he has taken a stand on. One of them is "Healthcare System That Works." In that link Obama addresses AIDS, "Medical Information Technology," hospital "report cards," "Genetic Medicine," and "Protecting Children from Lead Poisoning." There is nothing specific about universal health care in Obama's site, but again, there are several issues represented.

In Clinton's site, there is no specific place to go to see how the senator feels about specific issues; there are several press releases offered, including one that announces a "Better Health Care Together Campaign," but most of the releases are about her campaign, her jousting with Obama, and polls that show her in good stead. Clinton's press release tells the public what it already knows: "...The health care system is not working...costs are spiraling out of control," etc.; and while she asserts that health care is a moral and economic issue, no specifics are presented by the senator. Mind you, according to the federal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (www.cbpp.org),45.8 million Americans do not have health care as of 2004.

Iraq] Where does Obama stand? In the first place, he didn't vote for or against the Bush resolution for war on Iraq; he was a state senator in Illinois then, but he came out publicly against the Bush plan to attack Iraq. He now calls for a timetable for getting out. He introduced legislation to that effect in January, 2007. As for Clinton, she has the baggage of having voted for the Bush legislation authorizing war against Iraq. She "...is being warned by some of her supporters that she may endanger her front-runner status if she refuses to make some outright apology for having voted along with 76 other senators in 2002 to empower the president to use force in Iraq" (Schorr 2007), according to a report in the Christian Science Monitor. And although she now calls for a rejection of the Bush "surge" plan, and makes speeches (some are available on her Web site under "newsroom") she is caught in the crossfire of saying she wishes she had not voted the way she did. She comes off a bit wishy-washy when she answers questions as to whether she should apologize or not.