They are alike on most issues, but two come to mind for me immediately for me. I look forward to reading others' comments.

Health Care. Obama's plan won't garnish your wages if you can't afford insurance. For instance, right out of college, I was only earning $19k a year. After rent, student loans and car insurance, I had less than $100 a month for food, etc. Under Clinton's plan, if my wages were garnished, I'd likely have been homeless, unable to afford rent. I also believe that I would not qualify for public assistance with that income. So, I couldn't afford a roof or to eat, but I could get a physical if I needed one.

Working with Republicans in Congress. Obama's plan is to do so. Clinton reiterates constantly that she's experienced in battling Republicans and ready to do so again.

Instead of writing a redundant post, I'll point you to Jack and Jill Politics where they laid out, not only the stuff that anyone who's paid attention these past 4 years already knows, but they added some other under the radar items too.

I'm not going to answer your question regarding specific policies because I think you're missing a very important point.

The public knows that Hillary is a policy wonk.

But they dont care. If they did, she would probably be winning.

Hillary says "it takes more than words" and she's right. But it also takes more than policy.

Hillary has the policies, no doubt(i'm not saying OBama doesnt have them, mind you). But she lacks the "more" part of the equation. How is she gonna get it done when her campaign is busy resorting to the old, tired, politics as usual?

I believe that how you run you campaign is a good indication of how you're going to govern. Obama's campaign has been inclusive, optimistic, and steady.

Hillary's campaign, on the other hand, has been negative, divisive ( the number of states that "dont count" is up to 25 now) unsteady, and i would argue, at times angry. She cant seem to find a theme or a message that works so she changes it every week. People see that and they dont like it.

If the presidency was all about who has the best 10-point plan to set up a committee to study the effects of committees on policy, then maybe Hillary might have a shot. But policy alone wont fix this country.

In essence, this election is not only about WHAT needs to get done, its about HOW its going to get done. Do we want a 51-49 change? or do we want a 65-35 change? Because Hillary offers one, Obama the other.

And since you don't know how to use the internet (i can only assume because you imply that Obama has no substance on issues) i'm providing a link you might find helpful the next time you want to write about policy differences.

Barack Obama on the Issues

Their published policies may be very similar, because they have stolen from each other and from Edwards, but their track records are quite different as far as the committment they've shown to particular causes and the liklihood that they will actually retain these policies once elected. Here are the four that matter to me.

Foreign policy--This one is huge for me. Hillary has been consistently hawkish--more hawkish than other Dem senators even in 2002 (and again in 2004). There were numerous quotes from her as the Dems were trying to coalesce around a way to criticize the war they had voted for and the patriot act they had voted for where Hillary ran counter-to-message with phrases like "give the president the tools he needs," thus undermining the Democrats newfound spine in general and John Kerry's bid in particular. Obama's approach to finding common ground with Republicans extends to his desire to find common ground with America's traditional adversaries, something that we NEED to do with Iran and Syria if we hope to mitigate the vacuum left in Iraq after we withdraw. I think their differences on Kyle-Lieberman and their answers to questions about meeting with foreign leaders (not to mention that pesky AUMF vote) demonstrate a continued difference in their political philosophies regarding American diplomacy.

I think Obama is right and Hillary is wrong on that.

Lobbyists, ethics, earmarks, and transparency - Obama passed ethics and transparency laws in the Illinois senate and in the US senate. Obama did not accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs in this election; Clinton still does. Obama was the first to release the names of his bundlers; Hillary was the last. Obama released his tax returns; Hillary has refused. Obama voluntarily released information about his earmarks in 2006; Hillary did not. Hillary had the most earmarks in the 2008 defense appropriation bill than any other Democrat besides Carl Levin. Obama had one, for which he joined with other lawmakers, to provide education funding for severely disabled children. "According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton has secured 360 earmarks worth a combined $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006 in all spending and authorization bills." (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html)

I think Obama is right and Hillary is wrong on that.
In addition it has been a clear focus of Obama's legislative accomplishments that poor Kirk Watson couldn't remember:
* Passed a bill that created a searchable database that allows Americans to track how the goverment is spending their tax money. Including all federal contracts.
* Pushed ethics legislation in U.S. Senate Passed a bill that created a searchable database that allows Americans to track how the government is spending their tax money! You can look at all federal government contracts. (www.usaspending.gov)
* Pushed new Senate ethics bill to require candidates to disclose their bundlers
Pushed to create a Congressional Ethics Commission
* Pushed a law banning subsidized corporate flights for candidates

Hillary's ethics/lobbying/transparency efforts:
[0]

Executive power-- This one is huge for me and should be for all TPM-ers. Besides Clinton's aforementioned fullthroated endorsement of the patriot act and many of Bush's other power grabs in the early days of the GWOT, she still refuses to sign the "American Freedom Pledge" promoted by Center for Constitutional Rights to Human Rights Watch, MoveOn.org , Amnesty International USA, the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and True Majority, which states "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President." All the other Dem candidates signed it. Hillary still hasn't. Obama is a constitutional law professor and has spoken at length about his commitment to restore the balance of power between the three branches of government.

Human rights-- Hillary initially said that we may need to torture in some circumstances "it should be the exception rather than the rule." Obama has always opposed it in any circumstance. Obama actually did pass a law in Illinois that seems likely to greatly reduce if not eliminate the possibility of inmates ending up on death row because they were tortured into confessing (as had been the case with several of the 13 death row inmates that Northwestern journalism school found to be innocent).

There are others, but this comment is long already.

First I would point you to this post that does a great job of going over their legislative history:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Second I'll just point to their views on solving the foreclosure problem.

Hillary:

1) Voluntarily support a moratorium of at least 90 days on home foreclosures;

2) freeze the fluctuating rates on subprime loans for at least 5 years until they can be converted into fixed rate, affordable loans;

3) Require regular status reports on the progress they’re making in converting unworkable mortgages into loans families can afford so we have real accountability.

Obama:

Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.

Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

Hillary focuses on stop gap measures that make good sound bites but don't address the underlining problem. Obama addresses how we got in this mess he also effectively separates real estate speculators and people that just plain can't afford the home they are in from the people that are caught unfairly in a system that would otherwise be able to afford the home they are in.

I can't find the NPR transcript either, but I'll take you at your word that Obama recently modified his long-standing position on ethanol. Who wouldn't, when confronted with the science? The significant drawbacks of corn-based ethanol, however, have been known for years, the entire time Obama supported it in the U.S. Senate. Nevertheless, Obama "pumped" it up in Iowa, and now backs away from it when directly confronted with the evidence that was known long before the Iowa caucuses.

Maybe my comment would be better classified as criticism of the media for largely giving Obama a free ride. I am sure more of these "modifications" by Obama will appear during the remainder of the primary and in the general election. He certainly will not get a free ride from Republican 527s, though.