A really big brush

George-Pierres Seurat has always been my favorite of the Impressionist or Neo-impressionist painters. Of course, all the famous names (Monet, Manet, Renoir, Cezanne, etc.) are famous for a reason, but the originality of pointillism and the amount of attention to detail it seemingly requires always appealed to me. Perhaps his most famous work can be seen here.

Recently Liza, a regular commenter at various blogs who does not, so far as I know, have a blog of her own, has been bemoaning the lack of real difference between the various presidential candidates. It's not just her - a anonymous commenter at Arizona 8th said the same, claiming Hillary Clinton, in particular, was a "corporatist", not significantly different from the Republican candidates. Art Jacobson, proprietor of The Data Port posted a comment recently at x4mr's blog agreeing with Liza. So the view is getting around some.

I've been pondering about this for a few days now, maybe a week ... I don't think they're correct.

Oh, there is certainly a lot of validity to the argument. At some recent debate, Hillary claimed her vote couldn't be purchased by lobbyists. It's a laughable claim. All those corporations, lobbies, PACs aren't donating money just to hand it out. People (generally - there are exceptions of course) donate money to those they think can win, and a lot of people think Hillary can win. If she does, they are hoping to have some influence on her decision-making, influence purchased with money.

Of the Democratic candidates, Hillary is most clearly a corporatist, and in that sense it's true she's the liberal candidate most similar to the Republican line-up, or to the current White House occupant. It's a reason why she's most certainly not the favorite among Democratic Progressives. She's certainly not my first choice.

However, if you get up close and look at the details, the comparison breaks down.

Regardless of what you might think of her, if she is elected we are far more likely to see real health care reform, reform which doesn't just provide more money and power to the HMOs, than if any Republican wins the Presidency.

With Clinton in office, we are far more likely to see the government promote real science, whatever the result, rather than squash research that doesn't support certain pre-defined conclusions than we are if any Republican wins the Presidency.

If Clinton becomes President, we are likely to still have cronies appointed to high political office, but they are more likely to be competent cronies than if any Republican wins the Presidency.

If Clinton wins in 2008, we are far more likely to get out of Iraq than if any Republican wins the Presidency. I know Liza has her doubts about this one, but Clinton has consistently this year stated she favors withdrawal time lines attached to spending bills, and that if we are still in Iraq in Jan. 2009, her first action would be to get us out.

I could keep going, but point should be made - if you are painting with a really big brush you can make a case there is little different between Clinton and the conservative crew. If you get up close, though, and look at the points that make up the picture ... well, it's a different picture entirely.