In what seems like an endless march to a distant finish
line, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have converged in both poll
numbers and delegates to an almost dead heat. Such a stalemate seems reflective
not only of national opinion, but of their nearly identical policy positions.
However, Mr. Obama?s rhetoric, demeanor and vision make him our preferred
candidate in the Democratic primary.

Despite the similarities of both senators, there are a couple
important differences that give Mr. Obama an edge in policy.

In the face of Ms. Clinton?s federally mandated universal
health care plan, Mr. Obama is proposing a more rational health care plan that
mandates children?s coverage but allows adults to choose for themselves.

We are also encouraged by Mr. Obama?s foresight regarding
the war in Iraq. Although he was not in the Senate at the time, his opposition
to authorizing the use of force in Iraq was laudable when a laundry list of
lawmakers approved the Iraq war resolution, including Ms. Clinton.

Despite her vote, Ms. Clinton is not to be condemned where
Mr. Obama garners praise. Ms. Clinton?s decision was based on intelligence
given to Congress that later proved faulty ? and her subsequent switch in
position reflects that.

Yet, out of all their position points, those two differences
seem to be the only major policy divergences ? which brings the inevitable
buzzwords ?change? and ?experience? into the equation.

Mr. Obama certainly brings a vigor to politics not seen
since the days of Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy. His rhetorical ascendancy
and visionary reach was enough to pack the Kohl Center with nearly 20,000
potential voters Tuesday night. But, like lofty goals and hope for the future,
it means little unless backed with definitive action.

It is for this reason Ms. Clinton?s ?experience? argument
has convinced so many. While we cannot dispute that Ms. Clinton is the more
experienced candidate, we do not find this to be a strong enough reason to
elevate her above Mr. Obama.

Furthermore, her experience in the Senate has proven to be a
mixed bag. While her eventual stance against the Iraq war and vote against the
Federal Marriage Protection Amendment are commendable, Ms. Clinton?s leadership
on the Family Entertainment Protection Act was a bizarre exercise in nanny
state censorship that wasted even more time for an already anemic 109th
Congress.

Given these issues on both sides, it comes down to an
evaluation of each candidate?s capability in office given the polarization of
legislators and the country as a whole. It is there that Mr. Obama has the
edge.

Ms. Clinton?s one-time claim of a ?vast right-wing
conspiracy? lingers as a reminder of an acrimonious political schism we wish
not to repeat. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, not only seems to have enough
rational sensibilities in his tone that signal an ability to reach across the
aisle, but Republicans also seem much more willing to reach out to him. For a
nation divided, that may be the most encouraging sign of Mr. Obama?s candidacy.

?

Mr. Obama?s rhetoric may be criticized for its alleged
?hopemongering,? but given his policy stances and initiative to put partisan
bickering aside, perhaps change for the better is right around the corner.