Editorial: We recommend Barack Obama

Texas Democrats have a chance to make history as they choose between two qualified presidential candidates. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton often seem to be singing from the same hymnbook, but that doesn't mean this race is a close call.

On questions of substance and leadership style, Mr. Obama is the better choice.

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton's antics mocking his optimism, Mr. Obama has shown that it is possible to have both hope and intellectual heft. Her campaign has confused proximity to power with work experience, selectively taking credit for her husband's accomplishments.

At times, Obama-mania has threatened to obscure the substantive differences between the two candidates' proposed policies. A close examination shows that Mr. Obama is on the right side of several key issues.

Both senators aim to overhaul our health care system by lowering premiums and expanding subsidies. Mrs. Clinton's more mandate-centered approach could be a tougher sell, while Mr. Obama allows for more individual choice and avoids the appearance of insurance by coercion.

Both Democrats offer a significant upgrade from the current administration on environmental and energy issues. Both plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase our reliance on renewable resources. But Mr. Obama has rightly acknowledged the need to include nuclear energy in the mix; Mrs. Clinton has hedged.

Mr. Obama has echoed many of this newspaper's reservations about America's flawed death penalty system. And while he still allows for capital punishment in particularly heinous cases, he championed much-needed reforms in his home state. Mrs. Clinton, at times, has been an avowed death-penalty supporter; recently, she has chosen instead to highlight her push for more DNA testing.

Mrs. Clinton once touted NAFTA as one of her husband's biggest successes but now is threatening to withdraw from the free-trade accord. Mr. Obama is making similar threats but at least seeks ways to deliver on NAFTA's promise: microfinancing and financial aid to create jobs and increase incentives for Mexicans to stay at home.

On Iraq, Mrs. Clinton seeks an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops that, she says, could be completed over a single year. Her plan offers minimal military recourse in the likely event of chaos and civil war following America's withdrawal.

Mr. Obama has a slightly more gradual, flexible drawdown plan with the possibility of keeping a sizeable force in Iraq or nearby to pursue al-Qaeda fighters, train Iraqi forces and deploy quickly when crises erupt.

Mrs. Clinton's plan also is problematic because it hinges on holding talks with our enemies. She wants all of Iraq's neighbors – including Syria and Iran – to join a U.S.-organized regional security conference. But she hasn't explained how to accomplish this if Iran and Syria fail to accept the preconditions Mrs. Clinton insists that such "rogue regimes" must meet before her administration would meet with them.

Mr. Obama favors limited dialogue without preconditions, reasoning that communication – as opposed to silence – is the best way to resolve differences between enemies. That's sensible.

All in all, Mr. Obama offers Texas Democrats the best choice for leadership, for judgment – and for substance.

Original here