Skip navigation

Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?

Look at how two potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic nomination voted

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., listens to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., during the convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Washington last July.
Evan Vucci / AP file
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
msnbc.com
updated 8:12 a.m. ET Nov. 29, 2006

Tom Curry
National affairs writer

E-mail
WASHINGTON - Right now the two most prominent names in speculation about the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination are Illinois senator and best-selling author Barack Obama, and New York senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton.

The chatter about Obama grew more excited this week as he announced that he'll make his first visit to New Hampshire on Dec. 10 to appear at state party event.  And a “Draft Obama” web site was launched on Wednesday.

Are there differences between Obama and Clinton on significant issues?

And if they aren’t, would an Obama-Clinton contest largely be determined by intangibles: image, charisma, and personality?

(Of course, other Democrats, such as 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, may seek the nomination.)

A look at the votes Obama and Clinton have cast since Obama took office in January of 2005 shows a remarkable concurrence.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Both Obama and Clinton voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Both would have supported a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, if Democratic leaders had tried to mount one.

Each voted against an amendment to this year’s Senate immigration bill that would have denied legal status to those who had entered the United States illegally.

No Obama vote on war in Iraq
Both senators have voiced criticism of the way President Bush has conducted operations in Iraq.

Yet when they were given the chance to enact Sen. Russ Feingold’s measure ordering Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops by July 1, 2007, both Clinton and Obama voted "no."

Obama didn’t take a seat in the Senate until 2005, so he didn’t vote on the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq.

Clinton did vote for that resolution, as did 28 other Senate Democrats.

Obama and Clinton have disagreed on a few issues since the beginning of 2005, such as a mandate forcing automakers to achieve 40 mile-per-gallon average fuel economy by the year 2017.

Obama voted for that mandate, Clinton against it, and the Senate rejected it on a vote of 67 to 28.

On Congressional Quarterly’s tally of how often senators support Bush’s positions on issues coming before the Senate, in 2005 Clinton earned a 31 out of 100 rating (with 100 meaning totally supportive of Bush) and Obama got a 33.

On the National Journal scale of liberal to conservative positions, again based on roll call votes in 2005, Obama rated an 82.5 (meaning he was more liberal than 82.5 percent of his Senate colleagues) and Clinton a 79.8.

Ideological peas in a pod?
On most issues Obama and Clinton have voted in tandem. So if they are almost two peas in a pod, why prefer one to the other?

One useful dividing line, say some Democrats, is the Iraq war.

“Sen. Obama opposed the war from its very outset, which will be a very popular position in New Hampshire in '08. Just look at Carol Shea-Porter's truly unexpected upset over Rep. Jeb Bradley in the New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District,” said Garth Corriveau, a Democratic activist and Manchester, N.H. attorney.

The opinions of New Hampshire Democrats matter greatly since New Hampshire is the first primary state and often — as in 1992, 2000, and 2004 — its voters decide who the Democratic nominee will be.

“Although Sen. Clinton has been a critic of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war, she has not issued a John Edwards-esque mea culpa for supporting the invasion,” Corriveau said.

But he said the biggest difference between the two “appears to be judgment versus experience: Sen. Obama's media blitz portrays him as the candidate for change — youthful and charismatic — he even took a page from the Clinton handbook using ‘Hope’ in his book title. Sen. Clinton is an accomplished senator, master political tactician and invaluable asset to the party.”


Sponsored links

Resource guide