The least among us

An insurmountable lead in the polls has done little to rally the masses of Democrats behind Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Many on the left complain about her in silence, but figure that there is not much they can do at this point. They even reason that the difference between her and the other Democratic candidates is not much of a difference anyway. Many of them believe that the true deviation in policy begins with the Republicans, who they say believe in war mongering, tax cuts and tax loopholes. Is this the case?

I read the newspapers regularly and have seen some of the debates, but cannot honestly answer this question. Neither print media nor television has done a good job ferreting out these differences. But what about the internet? It embraces the print media's use of, well, the printed word. At the same time, programs like Flash Player allow internet sites to use the sexy graphics that make television so alluring to audiences. We have found — through — the web, a happy medium, so to speak.

I decided to go to the campaign websites of Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John Edwards to determine if there were any differences between the three of them. For the sake of web design, not all of a candidate's policies will make it to their website. I see this as a good thing, however, because it forces the candidate and their staffs to prioritize the issues. This thought process will be replicated should they enter office, so why not scrutinize what they present to us in the campaign?

Christians say that the measure of a society is how that society treats the least among us, so I decided that I would focus on the antipoverty policies of the candidates. How does Hillary address issues concerning the hungry? Obama the sick? Edwards the poor? The imprisoned? I wanted to know how Hillary stacked up against Edwards and Obama in providing an agenda that addresses the downtrodden in America.

One of the first things I noticed on Hillary's website was that in her "Issues" section, she offers no link to her agenda for fighting poverty or addressing underclass issues. Hillary does have a section on "Strengthening" the American middle class, which according to Hillary is "under siege." When you click on the link, you do find that the "working class" is thrown into the class rhetoric on the webpage, but phrases such as "Rebuilding Our Middle Class" and "Middle Class Squeeze" seem to point to where her priorities lie. If you do a quick "Find" search on the page, the word poverty is nowhere to be found.

On the other hand, barackobama.com has a section called "Fighting Poverty," while johnedwards.com has section simply called "Poverty." Each section provides concrete legislative proposals could serve to reduce poverty in the United States. John Edwards has an entire section that provides solid benchmarks that in his words will "end poverty" in a generation. For Hillary, the impoverished in America may be thrown in with what her site labels as working class, but JohnEdwards.com sees a strict separation between the two, with each group receiving a separate section. All three candidates aim to do the standard antipoverty acts such as raising the minimum wage and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. All of the candidates, in various ways, aim to provide universal coverage for Americans.

Edwards and Obama further distinguish their policies from Hillary in their added emphasis on rural counties, which make up a whopping 90 percent of our nation's poorest counties. Obama uniquely places attention on urban-specific issues like "promoting responsible fatherhood" and supporting ex-prisoners in getting readjusted to society. These are specific problems that have devastated urban communities. It seems that his years of community organizing and serving as a state senator for the South Side of Chicago have left a mark on the junior senator from Illinois.

If we accept this information, can Democrats remain committed to the idea that their candidates are all the same? If we are passive voters, then yes. But if we are engaged with the issues, and actively searching for the proposals and views that distinguish each of them, then we must answer with an emphatic no. It seems quite clear that if elected, specific urban or rural issues dealing with poverty (except for the bipartisan hot button issue of healthcare costs) will be quite low on Hillary's agenda, while an Obama or Edwards administration would place these issues front and center, where they belong.

I was hoping to include some Republican candidates in this discussion. Current estimates tell us that 12-15 percent of Americans are below the poverty threshold, but a quick browse at the sites of the leading GOP contenders yielded little on the issues. Perhaps the Princeton College Republicans can explain why their candidates' websites seem to treat poverty as a nonexistent issue. As we wait to hear from them, we as citizens should continue taking a closer look at the viable candidates and realize that individuals within each party are far more different than some would like us to think. David Smart is a history major from Los Angeles, Calif. He can be reached at dsmart@princeton.edu.