Both Candidates on the Issues: Comparison by Speech

The media like to focus on the political horse race, because it's exciting and because it's easy. It doesn't require breaking down issues, which it thinks will cause voters to yawn and tune out. You may not know, but I take requests. My mom asked the following:
"I've had several friends tell me that when Hillary speaks, they can understand what her plans are, but when Obama speaks, they feel his plans are very nebulous. I'd be interested in your and your friends take on this."

This is not the first time I've heard this slight against Obama. One of the best ways to attack someone is to find their strongest suit and attempt to turn it against them. Because he is an eloquent orator, Obama's opponents accuse him of lacking substance.

So, as a public service, I have gone through the texts of the most recent speech available on both Clinton's and Obama's Web sites and highlighted each issue or policy statement I could identify. I then pasted each into a table and organized them by topic and drew some conclusions which I will share below.

Clinton's speech was, serendipitously, her February 19th speech in Youngstown. Obama's was a week old, from February 13th, in Janesville, Wisconsin.

Clinton did not talk explicitly about unemployment or about education. I don't presume she's not sensitive to these issues, but for the record she didn't address them directly in this one speech. Obama didn't provide a timetable for exiting Iraq.

Both candidates propose universal health care. Obama had more specifics on his plan in terms of savings and coverage. They address the mortgage crisis, both by creating funds to assist families threatened by foreclosure: Obama proposes "a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year"; Clinton "$30 billion in assistance to help families avoid foreclosures."

Both focused squarely on middle-class issues; their Web sites both use the same language: "Strengthening the middle class." Both plan to offer middle-class targeted tax breaks. Clinton had a big dollar amount in mind: "Eliminating more than $50 billion of George Bush's special breaks for the oil companies, the drug companies and Wall Street…. We'll put that money right back in your pockets." Obama was working with smaller numbers here: "send each working family a $500 tax cut and each senior a $250 supplement to their Social Security check." Obama further offered to adjust the minimum wage so that it is reworked to keep pace with inflation each year.

Clinton was blunt on Iraq, pledging to start bringing troops home within 60 days. Obama did not offer a timetable in this speech, but it was clear ending the war is a priority that will allow resources to be used to fund other needs, such as a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs." He went on to address the need for green-energy sector jobs, but we'll let Clinton take this one: "Green collar jobs – five million of them – jobs we'll create by investing oil companies' record profits in clean renewable energy."

Both candidates shared a desire to end tax privileges for companies shipping jobs overseas. Obama dabbled in bankruptcy law, pledging that "if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, then you can relieve that debt." He touched on credit, proposing to ban rate changes to debt that's already incurred along with interest on late fees.

Curiously, Obama ate Clinton's lunch on family issues. Maybe it's because Clinton doesn't have to work as hard for those votes, but he touched on several proposals in this area: "expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and double spending on quality afterschool programs," "expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers," "require every employer to provide seven paid sick days a year," "require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings… and the federal government will match the savings for lower-income, working families."

Both candidates, however, were up to the challenge on working-class issues, like trade. NAFTA: bad. China: gonna keep an eye on them and play hard-ball. Existing trade agreements: will be strenuously enforced. Future trade agreements: won't sign another one unless American workers thoroughly protected. Clinton had the advantage here, I'd have to say. She really covered all the bases and spoke conscientiously on the topic.

My hypothesis was that Obama was going to be just as full of ideas and as clear in stating those in his speech as Clinton, and I was not disappointed in the comparison. What I did not expect was to be so captivated by Clinton's speech, which I was, even in reading it. She was eloquent and persuasive, full of reasons why she and she alone should be the next President of the United States. And, as I let myself be immersed in her speech, it seemed like the right and decent choice to make.

The speech Obama gave was different in significant ways from the Youngstown one from which I heard bits and pieces and which I believe he largely repeated in Houston, which I mostly caught on MSNBC Tuesday night after his win in Wisconsin. There he talked about withdrawing from Iraq in 2009 and he picked apart opponents' attempts to denigrate his "hope" theme. Still, as stirring as his most recent speech has grown, I realized that it's not just his enthusiasm and optimism, but his ideas that are exciting the electorate. For example, look at the education credit students will get in exchange for community or national service. This is asking "what you can do for your country" and getting real benefit in return.

Downloads
I welcome you to download my outlines and make your own evaluations. I did this late at night, it was hardly scientific, and I'm sure I was not objective. I welcome your comments. Obama's speech was eight pages and Clinton's was six pages, so he also had a length advantage in terms of raw material from which to draw policy data. Again, I found both to be compelling statements, and I appreciate both of their perspectives as well as the time and attention they've given Youngstown this month.

Clinton's February 19th Speech (Word doc, highlighted)
Obama's February 13th Speech (Word doc, highlighted)
Issue Comparison Worksheet (pdf)

Update 2/23/2008: In the Sunday Chicago Tribune, Christi Parsons and John McCormick analyze Obama's stump speeches and likewise find "Yes they are filled with platitudes, but they discuss policy as much as his opponents' speeches do."

"In San Antonio, where Obama delivered a typical version of his current stump speech, his address veered at one point into a two-minute description of his health-care plan. He mentioned the age cut-off for children on their parents' plans, the estimated cost reduction of premiums for those with private health insurance and a time frame for implementation.

He outlined the high points of his energy plan with numbers and industry jargon, calling for strict caps on greenhouse emissions, increases in car fuel-efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon and creation of green-collar jobs, right down to those working on "cellulosic ethanol."

He ticked off the dollar figures he says working families and senior citizens could save with his economic plan, and promised to raise the minimum wage yearly to keep pace with inflation."