Text size:

Clinton-Obama race marked by similar roots

BY CAROL EISENBERG | carol.eisenberg@newsday.com

January 13, 2008

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama bided his time for almost a year as the junior senator from Illinois.

Although he had arrived in the nation's capitol with near rock-star status in January 2005, he initially shunned the spotlight and spent time learning the ropes of one of America's most rule-bound clubs. But by early 2006, he was ready to make his mark and he chose to "come out," as one aide put it, on ethics reform - an assignment given him by the Democratic leadership, but which he used to define himself as an outsider running against the Washington establishment.

"That was water that few people were willing to carry then," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a good-government group. "He may have been assigned to carry it, but he took it up wholeheartedly, championing independent enforcement of ethics rules, which is arguably the most unpopular proposal you could make in the Senate."

Obama pressed so hard, in fact, that he landed in a startlingly unsenatorial tussle with one of the old bulls of the Senate, John McCain (R-Ariz.), now a presidential candidate himself, who slammed him for trying to exploit the issue for political gain. The two subsequently mended fences and collaborated on legislation.

Watching out for women

At around the same time, another junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), was also going the extra mile for a core constituency - women. In March 2006, Clinton used her senatorial privilege to block the nomination of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as Food and Drug Administration commissioner until the agency issued a long-delayed approval of over-the-counter sales of the Plan B emergency contraceptive. The effort was successful.

"Senator Clinton has been an advocate for women and children for all of her adult life. That's one of the core commitments she brought with her into the Senate. So it's not surprising she would have gone to the mat over an issue she regards as fundamental," said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Clinton supporter.

For both candidates, cultivating their base has been a singleminded focus - in his case, good-government advocates; in her case, women. And if the New Hampshire primary results are an indication, those strategies are reaping electoral results, with Obama claiming the edge among upscale, educated voters who are the core constituency for government reform, and Clinton winning decisively among women.

Yet an examination of their Senate careers shows that despite heated campaign rhetoric, the differences between them are for the most part a matter of style. Although Clinton portrays herself as a centrist, and Obama describes himself as post-partisan, both voted like liberal Democrats more frequently than either might like to admit.

Both opposed the confirmations of Justice Samuel Alito and backed the same nonbinding measure that urged President Bush to plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq, for instance. Both supported increased funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Contrasting approaches

Their differences are, as often as not, a matter of priorities and approach. He has cultivated the image of a maverick, emphasizing his early opposition to the Iraq war (although he was not in the Senate to vote on the 2002 authorization) and working across the aisle on ethics reform and securing weapons.

She has worked mightily to shed the partisan vitriol from her days as first lady, and to establish herself as a centrist, building bridges with Republicans, and picking and choosing her spots - on women's and children's issues, health care for first responders, and billions in post-9/11 recovery for New York, to name a few.

Loyola political scientist Alan Gitelson notes that in many ways they followed the same script: Both came in with national reputations and intense media attention. Both avoided controversy that first year. Both then chose their spots and reached across the aisle to try to get something done.

Yet there are some differences in their voting records that are likely to be exploited as grist for future campaign ads.

Clinton, who has sought to portray herself as tough on national security, supported a resolution last year designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The measure, touted as a way to tighten economic sanctions against Iran, was approved 76-22. Obama did not vote. Nonetheless, he jumped on Clinton's support as "naive and irresponsible," using it as a not-so-subtle reminder that she had voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution and suggesting the administration might use the Iran resolution to rush to war with Tehran.

Clinton notes there is no mention of U.S. force in the resolution and she has repeatedly denied the president has authority to go to war with Iran.

Obama, who represents a corn-producing state, has supported subsidies for producers of ethanol, a corn-based fuel, as well as a 2005 mandate that requires refineries to mix ethanol with gasoline. Clinton opposed such measures until recently, saying they would boost gas prices in New York. She reversed herself in 2006, saying her concerns had been allayed after two ethanol refineries opened upstate.

They also differed on the 2005 Bush energy bill, which Obama supported because it boosted investment in renewable fuels. Clinton opposed it because of its $14 billion in subsidies to the oil and coal industry. The bill passed 74-26. Obama sought unsuccessfully later on to strip some of the tax breaks from it.

On ethics reform, Obama has pushed hard for creation of an independent panel to investigate allegations of ethics violations. Clinton has twice voted against it. She did, however, support a 2006 bill aimed at tightening lobbyist rules; he was one of eight senators opposing it as too watered-down.