[Big Mac]

In light of another primary sweep yesterday by B.H.O I find it strange that there's no thread discussing his candidacy on the PWL. Many of you are convinced he will be the next president of the United States, so I cannot understand why he isn't being discussed actively yet.

[Dork.]

Obama is already the topic of the most influential political thread on teh 'NN:

The Official besson3c Presidential Endorsement

[Big Mac]

Ah, I see. Truthfully, I didn't bother to look there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

His record is a bit thin, so in a very real way there isn't much to talk about.

This come down to more of a contest of personalities, so there hasn't been much pressure on the Democrats to pin themselves down with actual policy.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by subego 

...there hasn't been much pressure on the Democrats to pin themselves down with actual policy.

Yep. I think once a potential winner becomes more clear, we'll start to hear more specifics as both parties gear up their non-primary campaigns for president.

[Oversoul]

There's just not that much separating Hillary from Obama in terms of policy.

Any person making the lack of substance argument should (1) check out Barack Obama's website and (2) seriously think to themselves that if Obama is elected president do they really think he, a liberal Democrat, will not protect a woman's right to choose, appoint progressive judges, end the war in Iraq, provide for the working and middle class, repeal Bush's tax cuts to the rich, support renewable energy and environmental initiatives, work to create new jobs for those whose jobs have been displaced to overseas, foster higher education among our youth, promote affordable health care, and any other issue so near and dear to the hearts of Democrats?

The argument on experience also rings hollow and even hypocritical since (1) Obama has been an elected official longer than Hillary, (2) I wouldn't count being the wife of a politician towards her claim of having 35 years experience, (3) assuming all Hillary's experience, what has she got to show for it, and (4) the same argument (lack of experience) was raised against Bill Clinton in 1992 when he was first running for office at the age of 46 (Obama is also 46).

I think some people are trying to draw distinctions where there are very little because when it gets down to what separates the two, personality and character, or even establishment versus change, Hillary doesn't have a chance.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, he'll do all those things and so much more. Barack will single handedly save the United States and cure every socio-economic and political ill - and do it all within his first term! Hey, Oversoul, when B.H.O. defecates, do you call it ice cream?

Talk about gullible.

[besson3c]

Look at all of the experience that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have had too... There isn't necessarily a relationship between experience and goodness.

[Oversoul]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, he'll do all those things and so much more. Barack will single handedly save the United States and cure every socio-economic and political ill - and do it all within his first term! Hey, Oversoul, when B.H.O. defecates, do you call it ice cream?

Talk about gullible.

Big Mac, my post was in response to subego's post that

This [will] come down to more of a contest of personalities, so there hasn't been much pressure on the Democrats to pin themselves down with actual policy.

I agree. In doing so, I never did endorse either candidate's policies but merely raised those points to compare the similarity between the two. Policy aside, there's the big difference between the two Democratic candidates are personality and message. The two sides try to make more out of their differences than actually exist to gain political posture, but it's an argument I don't think Hillary can win.

Will Obama be entirely successful in pushing his platform of change? Probably not. He's talking about going against a way of doing politics that has built up over two hundred years, not to mention members of Congress and segments of the electorate who will never support some of these proposals. Do I believe the change he offers is a better alternative to 8 years of Bush/Cheney? Yes. And I'm talking about "substance" in terms of what he stands for and what his policy proposals are, contra to the attitude as if all Obama is are pretty words. They're largely in line with Hillary's. If Hillary were to become president, would she be able to accomplish everything she's laid out on the stump? Again, probably not. With McCain, can he really accomplish all his right-leaning policies with a Democratic controlled Congress and a country largely tired of war and facing recession? Again, probably not.

Yeah, I get that politicians promise more than they can deliver. But if you resent that and don't believe that your vote can equal change, don't vote. Simple as that. In my view, at least Obama has tapped into the right message.

[BRussell]

I think the idea that he's without substance is quite wrong. He has no more or less substance than any other candidate, if you take the time to look through all his policy proposals. He's just also really good at giving inspiring speeches. It's like assuming a pretty girl isn't smart; just because she's pretty doesn't mean she's not also smart.

Obama vs. McCain 2008 == Clinton vs. Dole 1996

[subego]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

They're largely in line with Hillary's.

The only thing I would add is that I see Obama as far more likely to cast a big net in terms of looking for advice when forming policy.

I predict Hillary would be almost as, if not more, insular than Bush.

Where she seeks counsel will be based more on her intricate web of alliances than merit.

[Oversoul]

subego, I also think that will be the case.

Look at Hillary's campaign, full of loyal soldiers who have been with her since her time as First Lady. Loyalty is good, but it hasn't been producing on the trail recently. Moreover, I'm reminded of Hillary's "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude months ago when David Geffen, a long time Hillary supporter, threw his support behind Obama. She went apesh*t on him. Like many things, I'm not buying Hillary's facade when she says Obama was a friend before the race and they'll be friends afterwards. Same with every other one of her "friends" who support Obama. To be fair, sure, maybe if she wins. But I'm sure she's making lists and I don't think its within her capacity to truly mend fences when it's all said and done.

[BlueSky]

That he has his positions on issues at his website is moot to me. Fact is, he's some dude who gave an inspiring speech in 2004, got notoriety for it and is conducting his everyday campaign by milking it for all it's worth. Another day, another inspiring speech, to hell with details. Reel 'em in.

The very thing that seems to be exciting some people is the one thing about him that makes me extremely wary of him. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe he's just a good talker and that's it? **** your Hope, Belief and endless bloated bullshit speeches designed to elicit awe and adoration from the sheep. Get real. I haven't heard anything real from him yet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe he's just a good talker and that's it? **** your Hope, Belief and endless bloated bullshit speeches designed to elicit awe. Get real. I haven't heard anything real from him yet.

I'll expect something real if he wins the nomination.

As I said earlier, neither candidate is going to pin themselves down with policy until that becomes relevant to the campaign. It would only cost them votes.

The perception is that there is very little policy difference between them. Since both candidates are not only willing but happy to campaign on their personality differences, there would be no payoff from expending effort to change that perception.

[BRussell]

Clinton and Obama have an equal amount of specifics on policy. And they both have the same amount as McCain or any other Republican, and as much as any other candidate in other elections. This idea that Obama isn't specific or substantive, just because he's charismatic, is not logical and not true.

[subego]

I'm drawing a distinction between whatever is on their website, and what they say.

[besson3c]

What more do you want from Obama or Clinton in the way of policy? They have made it clear their strategies for the war in Iraq, health care, and they have shared many economic ideas and plans too. What is unclear to anybody?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm drawing a distinction between whatever is on their website, and what they say.

I'm not sure I understand - you're saying that politicians should be more substantive in their speeches? I think it just depends on the venue. At campaign rallies, politicians give rally speeches. When they give speeches at, say foreign policy institutes, they give more substantive foreign policy speeches.

When people say that Obama isn't substantive, I would just like him compared to, say, McCain. Are McCain's speeches more substantive than Obama's, or are Obama's speeches just delivered better, but are no less substantive? I haven't listened to McCain's speeches much (I usually fall asleep ), but I'm guessing that he's no more substantive than anyone else, he's just not as good at giving a speech. But no one wants to just list policy proposals when they're at a campaign rally.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Clinton and Obama have an equal amount of specifics on policy. And they both have the same amount as McCain or any other Republican, and as much as any other candidate in other elections. This idea that Obama isn't specific or substantive, just because he's charismatic, is not logical and not true.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What more do you want from Obama or Clinton in the way of policy? They have made it clear their strategies for the war in Iraq, health care, and they have shared many economic ideas and plans too. What is unclear to anybody?

Whoa. I think more is being read into what I wrote than is really there.

I never said that Obama wasn't substantive, I said he didn't have a record.

This means whether he'll do what he says he'll do, and how he'll go about it, is conjecture.

This is not so much the case with Clinton. In fact, you'll find that because of that record, there's a whole bunch of people who are afraid she'll do more than she says she will, or will go about it in a destructive manner.

Personally, for those very reasons, I'm not asking for anything more policy-wise from them at the moment. Neither is the media, and for better or worse, that sentiment is echoed in all the threads here on the subject.

Apart from that, I still stand behind my analysis that a serious policy discussion isn't in either of their best interests at the moment.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Look at all of the experience that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have had too... There isn't necessarily a relationship between experience and goodness.

Their blend of malice and incompetence was so extraordinary, so unique, that we had to coin a new word for it: Malcompetence.

Obama might not cure the common cold in his first week in office, but I don't think he'll have Bush's propensity for installing cabinet-level administrators whose sole purpose is to *SMASH!*

[smacintush]

The truth is, we don't know what Obama would actually do in office, but that's not the issue. We never actually know what kind of President anyone will be until they actually get in office.

The issue to me is his popularity is based largely upon hot air. You say that his positions on the issues are clear but it is largely his stage presence and speaking ability that is carrying him right now. His speeches however are largely vapid.

You say that anyone can go to his website and see what he stands for but if his ideas and beliefs are so damn enticing then why make your speeches so utterly vacant? The answer is, that on the issues he is nothing more than the status quo Democrat candidate. He's got no great new ideas, and if he were to REALLY push them he would be exposed as what he is: an inexperienced, naive near socialist who doesn't know near as much as he wants people to believe.

But nobody wants to hear that because their minds are clouded by the "Obasms" they get when they listen to him.

He felt a thrill go up his leg.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The issue to me is his popularity is based largely upon hot air. You say that his positions on the issues are clear but it is largely his stage presence and speaking ability that is carrying him right now. His speeches however are largely vapid.

1. Again, I think what you're doing is assuming a lack of substance based on the presence of style. That isn't fair and it isn't logical. Someone can have both, or neither.

2. I'd like to see a comparison showing that Obama really does display less substance than other candidates. I just don't see it. He gives 10-minutes campaign rally speeches, to be sure, but he's given just as many policy speeches as anyone else. It's not really fair to single him out without making a comparison to others, and as far as I can tell, they all talk in generalities. Obama is just better at it.

3. I'd also like to say that style matters, at least a little. The president's position involves policy for sure, but it also involves speeches and such, and, all else being roughly equal, I wouldn't want a president who lacked charisma.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I'll give smac this: I think Obama is probably getting a little more support than he'd get in say 2012 because his oratory skills are the polar opposite of the current President's (Which has been a much commented matter by the left).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I'll give smac this: I think Obama is probably getting a little more support than he'd get in say 2012 because his oratory skills are the polar opposite of the current President's (Which has been a much commented matter by the left).

I think that has a lot to do with it.

I was a Bush supporter but one can only take SO MUCH of his stammering, halting, mispronouncing and forgetting the words he was supposed to speak. The Democrats especially are very appreciative of speaking ability as it conveys an image of intelligence I think.

[Dakar the Fourth]

He'll also has a bit of the Bill Clinton charisma -- he manages to come off as genuine. In some ways, it feels like Hilary is running against her husband.

[besson3c]

It can't be underestimated how important it is to have a leader that is very clear, articulate, and convincing. Those of us that have worked with leaders that lack these qualities know what it is like.

It's not like the president will single handedly be implementing policy, and it's not like he/she will always be able to get things their way. A president is only as good as the people he/she surrounds themselves with.

My point is that charisma and clear and well laid out speeches *are* worthy presidential qualities, as are many other things...

[kido331]

i'm just concerned because he has only been pitched softballs by the press so far.

he is proposing almost $800 billion in additional spending and has only accounted for $55 billion in additional taxes that result from the end of the bush tax cuts. he didn't vote for the war in iraq, but then again i didn't either and for the same reason. neither of us were senators in 2003. he stands for things people like and against things people don't like. he says he reaches across the aisle, but hasn't done so as a u. s. senator. he thinks the constitution is a "living document" when it comes to abortion rights and the 14th amendment, but not for gun rights and the 2nd amendment.

i'd say if obama is the democratic candidate then good for him, but eventually he will have to answer more serious questions and i hope his answers will be better than the ones he offered in response to the rezko affair and his "present" votes in illinois.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, he'll do all those things and so much more. Barack will single handedly save the United States and cure every socio-economic and political ill - and do it all within his first term! Hey, Oversoul, when B.H.O. defecates, do you call it ice cream?

Talk about gullible.

Grow up. Everything he mentioned was quite reasonable. This is lame. Why did you start a thread if you didn't want posts in it?

[smacintush]

I agree that charisma is an important trait but it IMO it takes a back seat to so many other traits. It is those other things that are in question. I'll take a poor orator who is otherwise intelligent and with good character over a great speaker who is otherwise mediocre any day. I'm afraid that Obama may just be the latter.

[turtle777]

Oh yes there is:

Obama - the best thing since sliced tomatoes

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Grow up. Everything he mentioned was quite reasonable. This is lame. Why did you start a thread if you didn't want posts in it?

I do. I just find the extent to which Dems are enamored with this guy to be outlandish.

[Uriel]

I'll readily admit (as a independent that typically leans conservative) that I am more impressed with Obama then many of the democratic candidates I've seen.

I personally struggle with parties because I have atypical opinions on a lot of issues. I don't want to debate them, but I'm against torture, the majority of the wars America has participated in and much of the corporate influences in Washington but I"m also very uncomfortable with abortions and some of the socialist tendencies of the Democrats. I admire the Democrats claimed desire to care for the poor in our nation, but find many issues with many of their actions also.

Although I don't agree with much that Obama does, I agree with him to a much greater extent than Clinton and Mccain though. From what I've seen I think Obama has carried himself in a much more respectable way than the other candidates. Am I naive enough to think that it couldn't be an act? No, but what else is there to do than make decisions with the few choices we are presented?

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by subego 

The only thing I would add is that I see Obama as far more likely to cast a big net in terms of looking for advice when forming policy.

I predict Hillary would be almost as, if not more, insular than Bush.

Where she seeks counsel will be based more on her intricate web of alliances than merit.

I hate posting this thing so many times but

Obama Interview with Reno Gazette Journal

The portion of the interview that grabbed me the most was at the end. He discusses the type of people who he would look for to fill his administration. He wants people who aren't afraid to challenge him and are willing to look at things in new ways and provide unique solutions. More importantly, he recognizes what his areas of weakness are and want to surround himself with people who are more competent in those areas than he is. This is how you lead. You work on the tasks that you are good at, and then hire people that are competent in your weak areas and delegate to them while still keeping some oversight.

Hillary on the other hand thinks that she is an expert at everything. Well, no one is nor can they be. A truly smart individual recognizes his or her strengths and weaknesses and formulates an approach towards achieving a goal while keeping both of them in mind.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I do. I just find the extent to which Dems are enamored with this guy to be outlandish.

I understand that (although I still think your post was a bit out of line). The strongest Democratic candidate in terms of experience was no doubt Richardson. The most experienced candidate who was also a credible politician was Edwards. But star power makes a big difference (as it also did in 2000). I think either Clinton or Obama would make a good president. Although I'd still prefer Richardson, the fact remains that either is stronger than McCain. The Democratic field was just stronger this year. The Republicans have torn themselves apart over Iraq and will need to rebuild for next time.

[Oversoul]

I'd say both Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have more experience than Bill Richardson.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

I'd say both Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have more experience than Bill Richardson.

I guess it depends on whether you're talking longevity or variety of experience.

[subego]

I believe Richardson had (has) the most executive experience.

[Big Mac]

I say the Dems are going to lose BIG in November, and then the party should officially disband. JMHO. Then the Republicans can divide into separate liberal and libertarian parties.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Define "big"

[Big Mac]

Overwhelming electoral college victory and 60% popular vote going to McCain.

[subego]

From the 2004 election, I believe "big" was officially determined to be 3%.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Big Mac, I honestly have no idea where your unbridled optimism is coming from.

I will say this, however: The conservatives on this forum are confusing the hell out of me. I think I've seen every stance possible on McCain's candidacy.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Big Mac, I honestly have no idea where your unbridled optimism is coming from.

It is my personal view that neither Hillary nor Barack are electable and that the Dems are fooling themselves into thinking otherwise. They're in love with Barack's candidacy even before he has been nominated, and that love is blinding them to reality. They're also excessively confident that they're going to win no matter what.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I will say this, however: The conservatives on this forum are confusing the hell out of me. I think I've seen every stance possible on McCain's candidacy.

Isn't there a big slap-fight between those who want to stay home, and those who think those who stay home are assholes?

[besson3c]

Big Mac: until polls, historical data, SOMETHING substantiates what you say, your gut feeling is not going to carry much weight in terms of justification - no offense...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It is my personal view that neither Hillary nor Barack are electable and that the Dems are fooling themselves into thinking otherwise.

Saying Obama is unelectable at this point is just as ridiculous as saying he's a shoo-in.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It is my personal view that neither Hillary nor Barack are electable and that the Dems are fooling themselves into thinking otherwise. They're in love with Barack's candidacy even before he has been nominated, and that love is blinding them to reality. They're also excessively confident that they're going to win no matter what.

I did have an interesting notion when I drove home from work yesterday (Where I do all my deep though, of course...)

I don't recall what the term is (or how completely accurate my recollection is), but apparently when exit polls are conducted on races involving black candidates the numbers are always inflated because more people want to claim that they voted for a black candidate then actually did. Somehow, I could see this happening for Obama.

I'm not gonna lie, however. If Obama got wiped out by McCain I think I might be inclined to think of it as a matter of race rather than politics, depending how the states sorted out.

As for Hillary, I don't consider her all that electable, no.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It is my personal view that neither Hillary nor Barack are electable and that the Dems are fooling themselves into thinking otherwise. They're in love with Barack's candidacy even before he has been nominated, and that love is blinding them to reality. They're also excessively confident that they're going to win no matter what.

The only person on this board to have claimed knowledge of who is going to win no matter what is you, Big Mac. After losing twice to Bush, I don't think there's a Dem around who thinks they can win no matter what. But any reasonably objective analysis, using polls, using history, using any metric anyone can come up with, would give the Dems an advantage going into this election. To believe any Dem is categorically unelectable, as you have said that you believe, is to simply be in denial of reality.

[Big Mac]

No, I didn't say all Dems are categorically unelectable. I said both of these Dems are unelectable. But I prefer people thinking otherwise.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't there a big slap-fight between those who want to stay home, and those who think those who stay home are assholes?

Let's not forget Buckaroo, who would cast a vote for Hillary, either because she's more "right" than McCain, or because he wants a Democrat to "screw up the country".