Similarities to Clinton land Obama in a tough spot
To stay positive, he refrains from attacking character
The Iraq war. Healthcare. Diplomacy. Iran.
In the nine months since launching his insurgent campaign for president, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has seized on a slew of issues in trying to set himself apart from Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. But with Clinton's dominance unabated, there is little evidence Obama has made headway on any of them.
Poll after poll shows Clinton not only leading the Democratic field, but also leading on issues on which Obama has sought to gain advantage. Likely voters say that they see Clinton as the best candidate to fix Iraq. They trust her over her rivals to solve the healthcare crisis. And they believe she would bring change to Washington.
Part of Obama's problem, analysts say, is that despite how hard his campaign is working to highlight its differences - he is vowing again this week to take her on more directly - he and Clinton are simply not far apart on major issues.
"It's
That, analysts say, puts Obama in something of a box: If he and Clinton are too alike on substance and policy, Clinton's character should be his prime target - but to attack that would undermine the unifying, positive message of his candidacy. Obama's best hope, analysts say, is his organizational strength in the first state to vote, Iowa, where polls show a tight race.
Obama seized on a new issue over the weekend, trumpeting his prescription for Social Security - raising taxes on the wealthiest earners - and saying Clinton has not been candid with voters about how she would confront the looming shortfall. He continued with that message yesterday while campaigning in Iowa and may hit it again during tonight's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Clinton, however, quickly responded with a new TV ad touting her support for seniors and her opposition to privatizing Social Security.
Early in the primary race, the Iraq war - unpopular among Democratic voters - looked to be a signature issue for Obama. He opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton voted in the US Senate in 2002 to authorize the invasion.
But today their positions on the war are relatively similar, and polls show that many voters see her as the right candidate to end it. Asked in a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last month who would be "best at ending the war in Iraq," likely Democratic primary or caucus voters in three key early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, picked Clinton by 16 to 18 percentage points.
"Opinions on Iraq aren't a cause of people's opinions about a candidate, but a consequence," said Dean Lacy, a professor of government at Dartmouth College.
Obama continues to try to differentiate himself on Iran, too, criticizing Clinton's vote last month for a Senate measure designating the country's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group and establishing as "a critical national interest" resisting Iranian influence in Iraq. Her vote spawned warring fliers in Iowa - Obama charged that she had given President Bush another "blank check" for war in the Middle East, while Clinton defended her vote.
But Obama's argument is not so neat, and political analysts say their differences hardly present voters a stark choice.
Obama has also advocated branding the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist entity and has said it is in America's "national interest" to prevent Iran and Syria from using Iraq as a "staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries." Plus, Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire and did not cast a vote on the measure.
On healthcare, Obama and Clinton take a different approach - Clinton would require individuals to carry insurance, while Obama would not. Obama's strategy has been to use Clinton's widely ridiculed attempt at universal healthcare as first lady in the 1990s to argue that she lacks the leadership to do it right.
Polls, however, show that voters consider Clinton strong on healthcare. A survey of New Hampshire Democratic voters by Saint Anselm College released last week showed that voters who considered healthcare the most important issue preferred Clinton to Obama, 55 to 17 percent.
Obama has also sought to differentiate himself in leadership style and message, casting himself as the candidate best equipped to change Washington. Last month's LA Times/Bloomberg poll of primary voters in early-voting states showed that Democrats believed Obama, more than Clinton, had "new ideas." But other recent surveys have shown that voters see Clinton as more "inspiring," more likely to bring "needed change," and best able to "reduce partisanship."
"Barack has had a difficult time both identifying distinctions between himself and Hillary and then making them clear," said Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, who worked on Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
Obama strategist David Axelrod insisted that the two candidates have significant differences on issues, and said that this election is as much about leadership.
"It's about an approach and a style to politics and governance," he said. "And one of the questions is, are you willing to face these things squarely? Are you willing to be straight up with the American people, or are you going to pass everything through a sort of political calculus? I think that does have traction."
It appears to have traction in Iowa, where the newest poll shows Obama and Clinton neck-and-neck two months before the Jan. 3 caucuses. Clinton has called Iowa her "hardest state," hoping an infusion of new staff there will help her outmaneuver his formidable grass-roots operation. Obama was back in Iowa yesterday, saying he was free to point out differences with Clinton "as long as I don't get personal about it," according to the Associated Press.
Axelrod said Obama could highlight the differences without undermining his positive message, a quality he called vital to Obama's candidacy.
"I think he'd rather lose than distort who he is," Axelrod said.
Scott Helman can be reached shelman@globe.com. 