Making Sense of the '08 Field

Great article comparing Obama, Clinton and Edwards based on their voting records in the senate.

I was looking for something that might help me pick between them, since all three are or have at one time been someone I'd like to see in the White House (yes, even Clinton--though I said I didn't want her to get the nomination, I always followed it with, "but I think she'd make a great president if she were electable").

Clinton v. Edwards

On the basis of the article's breakdown of the difference between the two (I must confess, I tried to make sense of the linked chart and couldn't, so I'm going by the conclusions the author made) I'm leaning towards Edwards, I think. On every issue except the nominations and campaign finance, I agree with him.

I like that Edwards is calling his decision to vote for the war a mistake. I like the idea of exploring ethanol. I didn't like NAFTA and if this thing with Chile and Singapore is going to be another vehicle for exporting jobs to foreign countries and giving tacit approval to American companies to employ child labor at 15 cents and a bowl of gruel a day, I'm against it too. As for the taxes, I thought the tax cuts were a horrible idea, the deficit is out of control, and I don't know why any sane senator would vote against rolling some of that back if it's possible.

On the ones were I agree with her: Just working on the assumption that anyone Bush proposed for any position that required senate approval was probably a bad call, I like that she fought him more often than Edwards did. And on campaign finance, I'm always in favor of limiting the role private, monied interests play in politics for all of the usual reasons (makes candidates feel like they owe their supporters and gets people into office who have a decided bias in favor of protecting the interests of the richest Americans).

That said, maybe Hillary is taking a few slightly more conservative stances in the Senate because she wants to look like she's a little closer to center than she really is (as her husband did right up until he took the oath of office). That would be forgivable if there were any chance that the stances she's taken would actually make her more electable, but I can't see that they have. And it's possible that her fights on the nominations were more personal than political and that Edwards's stand on campaign finance was based on First Amendment concerns (which is a real reason to vote the way he apparently did). Without more information it's hard to tell for sure, but I think it means I don't like Hillary quite as much as I thought I did.

Clinton v. Obama

On the energy issues (this time it's nice to have a few words of support for their positions) I can understand Hillary's position, but I still side with Obama both times. On the ethics reforms, again, while I can understand that Hillary might have voted against the office of public integrity for good reasons (bugetary reasons, for example, or the fact that it would be staffed with Bush administration appointees who might not be all that motivated actually to do anything about public integrity) I still side with Obama in thinking it would have been a good thing and that if the ethics overhaul didn't have any teeth without it, it deserved a protest "nay." On the Taxes stuff, again Clinton voted with the republicans while Obama voted not to extend the ill-conceived cuts.

On the two last points I side with Clinton. Again with the fighting the Bush administration on nominations, and I don't know why it's a good idea to let senators practice medicine while in office, but I can certainly understand wanting to keep them focused on the job they do for the American people.

Again I find that the sum of my reactions to the differences between Clinton and her likely opposition makes me think that I like her a little less than I thought I did.

Edwards v. Obama

The article didn't compare the two because they never served together (Obama came in in 2004, right when Edwards was going out), but I think I can sum up my feelings about this pretty succinctly, nevertheless. In fact I can do it in four words.

Edwards had his shot.

He couldn't get the nomination when he was up against Kerry, and Kerry is a hell of a lot less "the real thing" to use West Wing parlance than either Obama or Clinton. I was an Edwards man in '04, but I don't think he's got any better shot at landing the nomination in two years than he did then.

So, I guess that makes me (at this point in the earliest parts of way to early to decide) an Obama man. Tacitly. For the moment.

It'll be fun to see how things shake out.