Senator Clinton would likely (unless forced during the campaign against now certain opponent Senator McCain to state otherwise) essentially the same basic policies as Senator Obama is proposing at this point. However the subtle differences can make a big difference. The fact that Senator Clinton wants her national health care plan to be as "universal" as possible which essentially "forces" everyone to participate is actually a better plan than Senator Obama's whose plan involves setting up a sort of "rebate" system to try to offset health insurance costs, but without forcing everyone to take part in the plan. Unfortunately this "loophole" is also one through which unprotected people can fall. Both plans actually have provisions to "opt-out" just as one CAN opt out of social security under certain conditions, but it would be inadvisable in most cases. Not forcing people to insure their family leaves the REST OF US, to pay for those medical expenses which are absolutely NECESSARY to save lives even for the uninsured just on a basic humanitarian level, which, unfortunately is rather like the system we presently have, and that is an excessive burden on the tax payers, without sufficient benefits.
To some extent, at least from the campaign statements, Senator Clinton is likely to be more cautious in terms of the use of the prestige of the US Presidency to accomplish diplomatic goals. But at the same time, she and her husband have had extensive contacts with foreign government officials and heads of state, so she could also use him as a very powerful "instrument of policy" and diplomacy, without getting heavy handed with the military, as the Republicans have. But by the same measure, President Clinton (the first, President Clinton) was not unwilling to bomb known terrorist training camps in Afghanistan during his term in office. Unfortunate (extremely unfortunately) they missed Osama Bin Laden then, too. But the point is that a more measured approach to military action and "proportional response" does not mean a "wimpy" foreign policy. Indications are that Senator Obama, though he has said that under the correct circumstances he would bomb another sovereign nation in order to eliminate (specifically Osama Bin Laden) terrorists, but he sounds more hesitant which may be true, or may just be what he feels the majority of Democratic voters want to hear in order to get them to vote for him.
The sad part of the reality of American politics is that both parties (both MAJOR parties) offer the same kind of candidates, plug them into the same adversarial system, and then seem surprised when nothing gets done by the government because neither side is willing to consider what is best for the county and its citizens before what will be best for their party.
Don't be too quick to believe that Senator John McCain's forays into cross aisle compromises really means that is the sort of President he will be, at least not with respect to the Iraq war, and bringing our military personnel home, and stopping the killing.
Love
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
