Skip navigation

Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?


< Prev | 1 | 2

Not determined by charisma
Corriveau said an Obama-Clinton contest won’t be determined by charisma or persona.

“New Hampshire loves the Clintons and is intrigued by Obama, but our voters are too savvy to vote for personalities,” he said. “If Clinton and Obama move to the front of the pack it will be because Clinton promises us better days and centrist policies, while Obama advocates a new way forward, devoid of hyper-partisanship and red versus blue states.”

Another New Hampshire Democrat, former congressional candidate Mary Rauh, said, “We’re longing for leadership.” In her view both Obama and Clinton, since “they’re both fairly new in the Senate,” haven’t necessarily had opportunities to show leadership.

But she added “It seems to me Obama’s ability to communicate says potentially there’s a leader there.”

She said it is Obama’s attractiveness and eloquence that causes some people concern. “That’s what some people worry a bit about — the glamour rather than the substance.”

But she said her husband had read Obama’s new book and vouched for his substance and she too looks forward to reading it.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Rauh met Sen. Clinton in her state back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for president. “She was a bright and dynamic woman, very engaging,” Rauh recalled. “I’ll be interested to see her here in action against Obama.”

A view from Iowa
New Hampshire’s primary will be preceded by a week or so by Iowa’s caucuses.

Iowa Democratic activist Ann Fitzgibbons said that without examining the two senators’ voting records, “I had assumed they were pretty close” in how they voted. “To me, they are both not far, far Left. They are mid-to-left. Who would I rather have as a candidate? Probably Obama.”

Fitzgibbons explained that while she admired Clinton, “it’s just the divisiveness of her” that causes her to say “I’d like to see her not run.”

“Every Democrat I talk to — and even independents — say they really have read a lot about Obama. People are pretty excited about him,” said Fitzgibbons, who works in Spencer, Iowa, in the predominantly Republican northwest part of the state.

The essential question, Fitzgibbons said, is “Who can win? Who can bring in more votes? Who is less divisive? I think Clinton is too divisive. It comes down to: who can bring the party together and bring in independents?”

Like Corriveau, Democratic strategist David Sirota, who worked on Ned Lamont’s campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman, sees Iraq as a dividing line.

“Obama campaigned against the Iraq War when he ran for the Senate, while Sen. Clinton pushed the war,” Sirota said.

“Obama, until recently, went largely silent on the war once he got into the Senate, but his recent declaration on the war suggests he still may be able to use the issue to differentiate himself” from Clinton.

Neither Obama nor Clinton
Sirota added that “Obama and Clinton are very similar, not only in votes, but in their rhetorical approaches. Neither of them has shown a desire to spend their significant political capital taking risks to, for instance, confront entrenched power or highlight taboo issues like economic inequality.”

“Even with both of them running, there will be a very real opening for an outsider candidacy,” he argued.

In Sirota’s view, “only two potential candidates have spent any of their political capital on something other than themselves, that is, on an actual cause/issue: Al Gore and John Edwards. I fully expect the Democratic primary to be defined by a fight between one of the conviction candidates like a Gore or Edwards (or someone else who emerges) and one of the establishment candidates like an Obama or Clinton.”

© 2009 msnbc.com Reprints


< Prev | 1 | 2

Sponsored links

Resource guide