What Hillary can learn from Obama

Obama has taken greater risks than Clinton across a broad range of domestic issues. When asked by ABC News in May whether the long-term solvency of social security might require benefit cuts or tax increases, he sensibly replied that “everything should be on the table.” Clinton at first appeared to rule out both benefit cuts and tax increases, before insisting she won’t tip her hand on social security until she’s in the White House.

When the two candidates spoke in March to commemorate the 1965 Selma, Ala., civil-rights march, it was Obama, not Hillary Clinton, who echoed Bill Clinton in insisting that new measures to expand opportunity must be coupled with greater personal responsibility in the inner city. After releasing an impressively comprehensive energy plan last week, Obama exceeded all of his rivals in acknowledging that the shift toward a low-carbon economy will raise electricity prices. And although both Obama and Clinton have bent towards teachers union pressure by unduly criticising the tests used to measure student performance, Obama has challenged the unions by proposing to link teacher pay to student achievement.

On foreign policy, Obama and Clinton have reversed roles. Obama has championed new approaches, but they predominantly lean left: He has pledged as president to negotiate personally with outlaw regimes and to pursue the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and he has denounced Clinton for supporting a tough-on-Iran resolution that the Senate approved last month. His foreign-policy message, centered on opposition to the Iraq war, reflects the quickening current of doubt in Democratic circles about military solutions to terrorism.

Clinton is resisting that tide. She accuses President Bush of slighting allies and emphasising arms over diplomacy. But, with an eye on next November, she also refused to apologise for her vote authorising force against Saddam Hussein, led the Democrats in acknowledging that Americans will remain militarily engaged in Iraq after 2008, and supported the hard-line resolution on Iran. Toughness is her lodestar.

In all these ways, the candidates are targeting different Democratic parties. Clinton’s bread-and-butter domestic agenda and muscular internationalism match the inclinations of the blue-collar voters and seniors at her coalition’s core. Obama’s collaborative foreign policy and somewhat nouvelle domestic policy capture the priorities of his base, voters with more education and fewer economic needs.

Democrats will need both sets of voters to recapture the White House — which means that, for all their tension today, if Obama or Hillary Clinton captures the nomination, the winner will need to learn from the loser before this marathon ends.

Proposal by proposal, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are constructing policy agendas that present their party with mirror-image choices.

On domestic policy, Obama has shown much greater willingness than Clinton to challenge liberal orthodoxy and the powerful Democratic interest groups that defend it. On national security, though, Clinton has pushed against the party’s left-of-centre consensus while Obama has embraced it. One candidate offers conformity at home and apostasy abroad; the other, the opposite.

Obama has taken greater risks than Clinton across a broad range of domestic issues. When asked by ABC News in May whether the long-term solvency of social security might require benefit cuts or tax increases, he sensibly replied that “everything should be on the table.” Clinton at first appeared to rule out both benefit cuts and tax increases, before insisting she won’t tip her hand on social security until she’s in the White House.

When the two candidates spoke in March to commemorate the 1965 Selma, Ala., civil-rights march, it was Obama, not Hillary Clinton, who echoed Bill Clinton in insisting that new measures to expand opportunity must be coupled with greater personal responsibility in the inner city. After releasing an impressively comprehensive energy plan last week, Obama exceeded all of his rivals in acknowledging that the shift toward a low-carbon economy will raise electricity prices. And although both Obama and Clinton have bent towards teachers union pressure by unduly criticising the tests used to measure student performance, Obama has challenged the unions by proposing to link teacher pay to student achievement.

On foreign policy, Obama and Clinton have reversed roles. Obama has championed new approaches, but they predominantly lean left: He has pledged as president to negotiate personally with outlaw regimes and to pursue the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and he has denounced Clinton for supporting a tough-on-Iran resolution that the Senate approved last month. His foreign-policy message, centered on opposition to the Iraq war, reflects the quickening current of doubt in Democratic circles about military solutions to terrorism.

Clinton is resisting that tide. She accuses President Bush of slighting allies and emphasising arms over diplomacy. But, with an eye on next November, she also refused to apologise for her vote authorising force against Saddam Hussein, led the Democrats in acknowledging that Americans will remain militarily engaged in Iraq after 2008, and supported the hard-line resolution on Iran. Toughness is her lodestar.

In all these ways, the candidates are targeting different Democratic parties. Clinton’s bread-and-butter domestic agenda and muscular internationalism match the inclinations of the blue-collar voters and seniors at her coalition’s core. Obama’s collaborative foreign policy and somewhat nouvelle domestic policy capture the priorities of his base, voters with more education and fewer economic needs.

Democrats will need both sets of voters to recapture the White House — which means that, for all their tension today, if Obama or Hillary Clinton captures the nomination, the winner will need to learn from the loser before this marathon ends.