I'm bemused by the tendency of some folks to imagine that a candidate who is well-spoken, who speaks in generalities and appeals to widely-held values, must be hiding something. Yeah, but where's the beef? one often hears. We heard this in the case of candidate Deval Patrick; and I got sick of saying that actually, he was the guy who rolled out his position papers before any of the other candidates. And now people are saying this with regard to Barack Obama: Hillary and McCain, along with many other pundits, criticize his penchant for “platitudes” and contend he doesn't have well-developed policy ideas.
That's just lazy. Here's Obama's big fat pdf of policy stuff. Knock yourself out. We can talk about whether he's got good or bad ideas, but please don't tell me he doesn't have any. I know that's false.
If you want to know about his health care plan, you can read my take from way back when. If you want to know about economics, read the New York Times rundown of his views, people, and strategy.
Now, it's true that Obama doesn't emphasize policy nuts-and-bolts in his stump speeches or appearances the way that Hillary does. But the media seem to imagine that most people don't know much about policy except very broad distinctions, and that they don't vote based on the fine differences between the candidates. I don't have any evidence that they're wrong about that. I've always felt that very, very few people — from truck drivers to PhD's — know enough about policy to have that outweigh their feelings about personality and temperament in choosing a candidate. I'd love to be proven wrong on that.
And maybe bloggers and blog-readers should talk policy a lot more. Maybe we should be leading by example. Why wait for Obama to talk about his policy positions? They're already out in public; why not hash them over yourself?
i’m basically done hashing out the differences in this particular forum, because i feel no room for minds to be changed. i could be wrong about that, but there it is.
<
p>but i do believe that candidates should enlighten non-bloggers as much and as often as they can as to the substance of their positions. charley, not everyone has a computer and internets. the candidates need to inform the public over and over and over again, and they need to do it the old fashioned way: mailings & newspapers, and the newfangled way: broadcasts of debates on radio and tv.
…this post has more than a bit of a defensive tone to it.
<
p>And I reject your assertion that the fact that the MSM feeds the American population pablum is somehow evidence that the average citizen is not interested in differentiating cadidates based on the fine points of policy positions. It is a wee bit dismissive in my estimation.
<
p>Having lived in Europe I can assure you that truck drivers and Phd’s alike are capable of processing and assessing policy postions and using that information to make informed choices. I have seen it in the UK, Germany and Spain first hand. Of course, in those countries news outlets actually disseminate the news and relevant information and are less focused on personalities. I simply cannot accept as accurate the assertion that the average American is somehow less intelligent than the average western European.
<
p>As far as Obama’s policy positions, that PDF could not be more high level if it wanted to be. It is, in fact, remarkable to a degree in its lack of detail and reads like a laundry list or punch sheet. Hearing Sen. Obama talk about and expand upon those bullet points will demonstrate and reinforce that they are actually his positions and that he understands them. Frankly, right now, I have no evidence that he understands his own policy positions more than you seem to think the average truck driver does. That is why it would be nice to hear him speak of them from time to time.
The standard answer to this argument is that, if Americans truly wanted to be as well-informed as Spanish truck drivers and Welsh PhD’s, the media, following the dollars, would provide better news coverage.
<
p>They don’t.
<
p>Could the laws of supply and demand have taken such a long vacation?
….the issue is that our media is a market. It used to be the fourth estate. Now it’s a pick ‘n save. They have tabloids in Europe, too. Somehow they also manage to have news and a stronger economy. Go figure?
<
p>
… after all those great ideas he talked about in the campaign and then formed all those study groups so we could put in our input and develop all that Policy he talked about. Funny how I don’t remember the one on funding Property tax reform by advocating for three Casinos. Hey but there just words.
Well, I’d like to be clear that if I’m defensive, it’s defensive of my idea, and not of Obama himself. I like him, but he can take his lumps from the skeptics (which I’ve been one), and that’s fine.
<
p>I hear you, Anthony: I love watching the totally adversarial style of BBC interviewers; and it’s not with Russert-esque bogosity, they ask questions that are actually to the point. Yes indeed, I imagine that much of Europe is much better informed that people here. And maybe Obama would get his butt kicked in that environment — though I doubt it.
<
p>Furthermore, I’ve heard Obama speak a couple of times now, and I’ve found that his speeches lack bite. A bit too nice, and a bit too vague. So I’m sympathetic to that objection. But on two of the things I care most about — climate change and health care — I think he’s done his due diligence on policy, which is not to say his plans are necessarily better than Hillary’s.
<
p>But … as KBusch implies, I think Obama’s figured out a way to make the media work to his advantage. Gosh golly, they love him. Now, maybe our media are shallow, but that’s not his fault, is it? (Below, my skeptic-nemesis sabutai complains that Obama tailors his rhetoric “for political gain” … gosh, I’m shocked! What candidate would stoop to such lows?)
<
p>Those who are voting tactically (which everyone except the Kucinich/Gravel wing does) might recognize his ability to use the media as it is as a strength, something that will serve him well in the general. I think Obama’s superiority over Hillary as a politician becomes more obvious all the time.
…therein lies the core issue with Obama for me. He claims not to be that politician. He’s the guy who walks into the room and tells the banker or the drug company czars or the insurance executives what they need to hear, i.e. the truth and not what they want to hear, or so he says.
<
p>I have a hard time taking someone at their word when they say they do one thing behind closed doors but then doesn’t do the same thing out in public. Where is the hard truth that we need to hear? We all know there is a mountain of it, but I keep hearing what people want to hear from camp Obama.
<
p>It doesn’t add up. I am skeptical of what is missing.
<
p>I think the Deval Patrick comparisons are imperfect but in this regard I find them instructive. I personally voted for Patrick, both in the primary and the general, because of his civil rights positions, specifically gay marriage. He has delivered. I got my money’s worth. But I had no illusions about his intrinsic ability to steer the commonwealth because he gave me no reason to believe he could. This past year has gone pretty much as I though it would and he bungled quite a bit. So many people around here, however, are angry at his shortcomings because they did not let themselves recognize them becuase the “movement” was too enticing.
<
p>I am not looking forward to learning about Obama’s shortcomings after the election.
<
p>We will see who is the better politician when this race is over. It is far from over. It is clear that they are both formidable. I have a sneaking suspicion that HRC is going to take Wisconsin tomorrow.
Well, so much for that. đŸ˜‰
<
p>Obama does actually have a history of telling his constituents things they don’t want to hear. Does that show up in his stump speech? Not so much, I agree. But there’s a lot more to any candidate than the stump speech. That was my original point.
It has been one year. What he has proposed has been proposed and talked about in the past. Now this much ballyhooed closing of loopholes is great. The one thing that he has accomplished in one year. Conversely the closing of the loopholes (so called) is accompanied by a reduction in corporate taxes. So the net gain is whatOver the period of five years what will it be? I have said this since six months prior to the gubanatorial election. Speaker DiMasi is atthe helm. He calls the shots. Just as his predecessors did. The governor of Massachusetts is a powerless figurehead.
<
p>Yes, Barak Obama speaks in platitudes and banalities. “Yes we can”, “Let’s reach for it”, “Together we can”. This is not 1961. Hoping for the best is not a bad thing. Striving for excellence is commendable. Pandering to people is absolute BS and Barack Obama panders. To a degree all politicians use the tactic. Ms. HRC and Barck Obama have taken it to a new level for adult leaders (so called) they sound more like 18 and 19 year old college students lamenting the fact that the world is not a perfect place and promising they will change things. They will change nothing. McCain will change nothing. You can, bend, prod, and poke, but you will not overcome inertia and make the forces of history and nature make a 180 degree turn. Look at the fools that we have in the US Congress, especially Pelosi and Reed. I’m amazed their approval ratings are not in negative numbers.
<
p>I wish we had politicians that were realists and treated the American electorate as if we were not the greatest collection of morons on the planet.
<
p>Our number one priority is the saftey of the USA. Defensively, economically, and energy. We must lock our borders down and allow human traffic to come and go at our will, not THEIR will. If we do not accomplish this, you young folks may not have a future, at least one that you expected and hoped for.
<
p>Barack Obama is not up to that task. He needs fifteen more years of experience and maturity. We cannot afford stupid mistakes by a novice.
The person who is elected President can have a huge effect on where we go in the next 4 years. Just take a look at what Bush has done in his two terms.
This is an extremely pessimistic view point that I hope isn’t shared by most people.
Lock down the borders? What world do you think you live in?
Actually that comment is unfair to Buchanan. Lock down the borders? Human traffic? I know I can rant sometimes but this takes the negativity and pessimism that blogging can sometimes feed to all time lows. If you really think its all so bad, what is the point of posting anything?
In point of fact circumstances have an awkward way of intruding on what any leader can achieve. 9/11, for example. Principles, not policies, are ultimately the safest bet when casting a ballot.
<
p>The argument that Obama is not well versed in specifics or hasn’t spelled out what he hopes to accomplish, however, is simply idiotic: bad argument, and bad politics. Bad argument because as Charley notes Obama has provided a raft of specifics. Bad politics because if one wants to discuss specifics then, hey, let’s talk about Clinton’s deliberate vagueness on Iraq: a plan to make a plan — come on! — versus a specific timetable for withdrawal. Sure, they both say they want out, but if we’re talking specifics, Obama has them here and Clinton does not.
<
p>I know Iraq is an awkward subject for Clinton, what with how she supported the invasion and all, but there it is. If Senator Clinton wants to throw the stones of specificity, she should attend to the glass house of her own generalities on one of the most pressing issues of the day.
then I respectfully suggest that you lay out both candidates’ positions (with links) as you see them. Otherwise, your post adds nothing useful to the conversation.
…seen this raft of specifics of which you speak. To be fair, the information available in Sen. Clinton’s web site is not on average any more detailed. I have, however, heard her speak at some length on the specifics of her policy positions and I am satisfied that she really understands both the context surrounding her policies and the policies themselves. It is silly to separate principles from policies. They go hand in hand and inform each other. To understand one without understanding the other is insufficient, period.
<
p>And as far as Iraq is concerned, I disagree with you assessment of Sen. Clinton’s position. She is on record as stating that she is interested in removing our troops from Iraq as quickly and safely as possible and to do so in a manner that protects our resources and the lives of those Iraqi citizens that we have relied upon since the invasion. She does not and cannot, even as a Senator, have all of the information that she needs to determine what course of action is best at this point and neither does Sen. Obama. I have heard noting from him on complexities or exigencies as I have from Sen. Clinton.
<
p>To take 9-11 as an example, it was clear that Mr. Bush didn’t really have a foreign policy of his own and certainly had little understanding of foreign issues. If our political process vetted our candidates thoroughly as many of the European systems do we might not have gotten into this mess in the first place.
<
p>It does no harm to anyone for a vocal part of the electorate to insist on hearing more from candidates on policy except a candidate who is not prepared to do so. I have no idea whether Sen. Obama is fully prepared and I would like the opportunity to find out. That desire is neither idiotic, nor a bad argument. It is certainly not bad politics to press our politicians for their positions. It is bad politics not to.
His speeches are so meta, he doesn’t even get his principles out, let alone policy specifics. When I asked in another thread “what are his words?”, I wasn’t suggesting that he didn’t have any “beef” (I’m sure there’s pdfs), I literally wondered if he had made any statements comparable to MLK’s or JFK’s that would indicate his principles or priorities, what are the statements that inspire, what do they inspire – there must be something like that, besides the “Just Words” speech. That’s so empty and weird.
And the reason he doesn’t give policy-ladened speeches everywhere is because frankly they would be boring. You can argue all you want about how the voters want specifics but speeches are not the place for it. Some yes, giving a sense of what is important to a candidate, but not bullet point specifics. Without something to compare it to it would be wasted.
<
p>Here is the link to his speech in Janesville Wisconsin. Plenty detailed and specific.
Neither detailed, nor specific – certainly not plenty
Can you show us a campaign speech that you think is more detailed, specific and policy-heavy than this one? That’s a good-faith question.
….to this speech for instance which is much more flushed out in terms of context. Not simply that we have problems, but specifically what are they? What are some of their causes? What Have I done to try and address them already? What more would I like to do? Where does this idea come from and why do I think it will work? What is the proposed cost?
<
p>Now on every issues all of theses questions are not answered, but in general the issues are substantially more fleshed out and the context is much more elaborated.
<
p>And you know what, it still ain’t enough, but at least it’s more.
aren’t bad. The ones I’ve read I actually quite like. She is just not great at giving them and I have no confidence in her ability to deliver policy even if she is well versed in it.
<
p>And once you start getting into a bunch of wonky bullet points it starts sounding like you are reading a piece of legislation and people really don’t want to hear that shit.
<
p>I think Obama knows this – he could of course get more specific if he wanted to, but it would not gain him anything. He hits the right balance for his style and I’d say its working for him. Detail is overrated.
Not that policy doesn’t have its place, but rhetoric trumps policy. It defines the parameters within which policy operates. To use an analogy: rhetoric is to strategy as policy is to tactics.
The Clintons are very skilled tacticians but they are massively lacking in strategy.
<
p>Clinton has a collection of policies, many of them sound and strong, but no overriding narrative by which to frame them well. Experience is about her not her policy. Obama’s change narrative wraps both him and his policy within a framework – even if the policy is not different from Clinton’s people have a sense of what he wants to do.
I am willing to grant that few people reach the US Senate without absorbing knowledge of policy at some level, even if practically despite themselves. No, what we are seeing is not Obama’s inability to talk about hard facts and policies, but rather his decision to avoid such talk. In the most recent debate, Hillary Clinton displayed a meticulous knowledge of her health care plan. Obama certainly didn’t. Now, he probably and hopefully does have a strong knowledge of it, but why didn’t he talk about it?
<
p>It seems that Obama/Axelrod have taken the decision that he will enjoy better success avoiding talk of policy. His campaign has consciously dumbed down their rhetoric for the sake of political gain. They’re endeavoring to talk down to the American people, and that’s the problem that I have.
<
p>A good example is the contrast with the man Obama’s trying to ape, John Kennedy. Look at this early campaign speech wherein Kennedy defends his lack of experience. He doesn’t say “hope” louder and louder. He doesn’t say “yes we can” and defend his “just words”.
<
p>No, Kennedy intelligently compares and contrasts the administrations of a dozen different presidents. When has Obama even attempted such in-depth remarks, much less pulled them off?
after all, he is reputed to have a brilliant legal mind, was editor of harvard law review, etc.. so i am left with the same conclusion you are – that he chooses not to speak of policy. apparently his brilliant mind told him that this was a good strategy. sos far so good, but then the problem he faces is one of keeping the audience fired up on the same ra-ra until all the primaries are over. i’m not sure he can do it without altering his rhetoric to a degree. i fully expect to see him start to talk turkey. according to a commenter above, apparently he made such an attempt today in wisconsin. too little too late in my opinion, but if all he cares about is people liking a message and not knowing the quality of the messenger, maybe the joke is on me.
…not certain. Brilliant legal minds are not necessarily able to grapple with, develop and understand complex governmental policy creation. It is possible to be an absolutely brilliand jurist and be ingnorant as to governmental policy.
<
p>I suspect he is more than capable. Let’s see the proof.
i’ll wait for it with you.
Kosovo declared independence. The Balkans and several European countries are taking sides. Most notably, Russia and China are siding with Serbia. Russia says they will supply arms to Serbs that wish to fight. Unfortunately Condoleeza Rice decided to back the Kosavars. We may be looking at another Balkan War as well as an imminent armed conflict in Lebanon and Israel and Iran squaring off.
<
p>The major banks in USA seem to be looking at another round of BILLIONS in losses..Obama and Clinton had better find something to talk about rather than plagiarism and who can urinate higher on the wall.
<
p>They are fiddling while Rome burns.
If there is any morality which has not been squeezed
from our foreign policy, it demands that we stand with our friends and allies against their bullying overlords.
Charley, you started to touch on this, but we (the blogosphere) need to set the example when it comes to talking about policy. The netroots have occasionally been a force over the past few years in electoral politics, but it’s well past time that we become a force in policy advancement. A great part of that includes developing ways for people to learn about the nuts and bolts that relate to them.
<
p>Unfortunately, writing a big, long, giant blog about a subject isn’t the best way to get the nuts and bolts across for the general public. People need – and respond to – more direct means of education: what I’ll term as Grassroot Projects. Forums and such are one way to do it, but sometimes we need to make it a little more fun. Part of that could happen with an alliance between the netroots and the grassroots at the local level – like town, ward and city committees.
<
p>Do we want to teach people about the importance of energy conservation? Well, if a town committee finds that a noble goal, they could do something like create a booth at a busy location selling low-energy consumption light bulbs, passing out literature about why they’re important and the differences they can make. They’ll be doing a little good, education a ton of people, building the Democratic Brand and hopefully bring attracting a few new volunteers and raising some small funds in the process. (I wish I could claim that idea as original to me, but it came from John Walsh =p). It could come in the form of cleanups or visits to classrooms and assemblies at schools. In essence, we need to be the change we want.
<
p>There’s a lot of things we can do – and a lot of the planning and ideas are going to come from the blogs. However, we need to find a way to bridge the gap in order to teach people about the important policy options that have a chance to change all of our lives for the better. After all, we’re all in this together, so we may as well try to make the most of this strange thing called life.
In determining Obama’s capacity and willingness to lie through his teeth while smiling absentmindedly.
<
p>While he says he will pull troops out of Iraq, he will also continue the fight against al-CIA-duh, that mythical “enemy” created to secure profit margins for the DOD.
<
p>Yes this is Nancy Pelosi on steriods.