Obama at J-J Dinner

For those who want to hear less about "hope" and more about his policy agenda, Barack Obama's Jefferson-Jackson Day speech in Virginia was full of that kind of thing. Personally, I think it's probably a mistake for a speech to turn into two much of a laundry-list, but if you really want to see his agenda spelled out in some detail, the Blueprint for Change document has it in spades. My guess is that about none of the people who purport to be troubled by his lack of specifics have read this, but who knows? Certainly, it meets any possible standard of plodding earnestness that one might want.

I liked this line from Obama a lot:

It’s a choice between debating John McCain about who has the most experience in Washington, or debating him about who’s most likely to change Washington. Because that’s a debate we can win.

That seems right to me. Electability issues are fuzzy and who knows. But as someone who participates in political arguments for a living, the debate Obama is proposing strikes me as a more inviting one than the debate Clinton is proposing.

Comments

I know the typo criticism gets tiring.

But "two much"?

Jeebus.

Posted by Freddie | February 11, 2008 11:58 AM

Despite a speech loaded with specifics, why am I sure that Clintonistas will continue right on dismissing Obama for having nothing but
empty rhetoric?

btw, over the weekend, Bush slammed Obama on (surprise) FOX. i can't think of a better endorsement than that.

Posted by rob! | February 11, 2008 12:00 PM

Tried to open the Blueprint for Change, and Acrobat says, "The file is damaged and could not be repaired." Hmmm...

Posted by SP | February 11, 2008 12:01 PM

a mistake for a speech to turn into two much of a laundry-list

should read, "a mistake for a speech too turn intwo to much of a laundry-list."

And when, oh when, will Obama stop disrespecting Huck? McCain hasn't won yet!!!!!

Posted by Pesto | February 11, 2008 12:02 PM

Matthew writes "his agenda spelled out in some detail, the Blueprint for Change document has it in spades. My guess is that about none of the people who purport to be troubled by his lack of specifics have read this, but who knows? "

I'm not one to criticize you, but haven't I told you the same thing before? On some posting some time ago, you asked what was Barack's position on such and such. I told you to look at his webpage. And, look, now you're doing the same thing! Perhaps you've finally taken my advice in which case I am here to say you're welcome to your thank you.

"the debate Obama is proposing strikes me as a more inviting one than the debate Clinton is proposing."

Certainly. Obama's debate: hope, change, unity, post-partisanship, charisma. Interesting.
Clinton's debate: mandates. Boring. Let Ezra talk about it to himself. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 12:04 PM

You're right, that was tiring.

Posted by neil | February 11, 2008 12:05 PM

Does anyone happen to know where the Obama (and Clinton, I suppose) election day headquarters will be in MD/DC/VA tomorrow - basically, where he is expected to give his victory (or, concession...) speech tomorrow night after the polls close?

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 12:07 PM

Is Clinton really proposing to "debat[e] John McCain about who has the most experience"? Where has she said this? Isn't her point that as long as she's the candidate, the debate with McCain becomes less about experience because she neutralizes that to some extent? (Obviously, you can question that assumption.) Moreover, does Obama think he can control the terms of a debate with McCain? Maybe to some extent he's right, or maybe this is just another example of his failure to understand what the GOP is going to throw at him if he's the nominee.

Posted by Glenn | February 11, 2008 12:08 PM

Leaving the typo aside, I for one find the Clintons two much. *s*

Posted by maraschion | February 11, 2008 12:14 PM

The suggestion that Clinton is proposing to debate McCain about who has the most experience in Washington is simply a misrepresentation. She consistently criticizes McCain for advocating a continuation of the administration's policies. In a contest with McCain, Clinton would be the clear voice of change and, arguably, her experience and her strength on national security issues would neutralize these selling points of McCain, which would be advantages for McCain against Obama.

Posted by ARV | February 11, 2008 12:14 PM

I'm not at all reassured about Obama's way on Social Security:

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

Since the Social Security Trust Fund is there until at least 2042 to cover any projected shortfall in payroll taxes, it's not necessary to raise payroll taxes at this time. Nor is it fair to do so, given how a surplus of payroll taxes since 1983 have made it easier for the federal government to cut other taxes. Democrats shouldn't be on the side of making it that much easier for George W. Bush's tax cuts to remain in place

Posted by David W. | February 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Iraq. Clinton can't really debate McCain on it, nor has she suggested that she wants to. Sure, she makes fun of Bush as an incompetent and McCain as a warmongering old fart, but what can she actually argue in terms of the war's inception that will be any different from McCain's arguments? Not much.

Obama needs to keep reminding us of this, and he needs to keep insisting that we debate the notions of preemptive war, empire, hegemony, etc. This is where he can separate himself from Clinton and from the GOP, which is exactly what a Democrat needs to do to avoid another 2004. Kerry was a terrible candidate in a lot of ways, but if he'd been able to run as someone who'd foreseen and foretold the disaster in Iraq, he just might've won.

Posted by tinisoli | February 11, 2008 12:15 PM

"Is Clinton really proposing to "debat[e] John McCain about who has the most experience"? Where has she said this?"

Experience has been the 1 or 1a reason Hillary has given for voting for her over Obama. Unless McCain and his entire campaign team all suffer serious head injuries, you can be sure they're going to throw every single thing Hillary has said about the importantance of experience back at her. I'm sure we'll get a comment during the debates along the lines of "Hillary spent all her time during the Democratic primaries saying people should vote for the most experienced candidate, and I'm sure she feels exactly the same way now."

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 11, 2008 12:18 PM

This is why Clinton's "experience" argument is not getting her anywhere -- experience is just another word for connection to the status quo. McCain will run into exactly the same thing. People really, really don't want to elect someone who is comfortable with the way Washington is working. Under those circumstances, lack of experience is one of Obama's most marketable traits.

Posted by Leo | February 11, 2008 12:28 PM

It strikes me as weird that so many electrons are expended arguing about how convincing arguments will be to other people.

Posted by Alden | February 11, 2008 12:28 PM

This is why Clinton's "experience" argument is not getting her anywhere -- experience is just another word for connection to the status quo. McCain will run into exactly the same thing. People really, really don't want to elect someone who is comfortable with the way Washington is working. Under those circumstances, lack of experience is one of Obama's most marketable traits.

Posted by Leo | February 11, 2008 12:29 PM

No Matt. Don't you see? We need to nominate an earnest policy wonk because Dukakis and Gore did so well... The American people are inspired by details! Details. Lots of them. That is the way to their hearts.

Posted by David | February 11, 2008 12:30 PM

In a contest with McCain, Clinton would be the clear voice of change and, arguably, her experience and her strength on national security issues would neutralize these selling points of McCain

Her "strength on national security issues" consists prominently of a history on Iraq not terribly different from that of McCain, which would seem to contradict the "clear voice of change" claim. A clearer voice of change is also available.

Her "experience" claim seems to be based largely (not entirely, true) on being married to a guy who has a lot of experience. It's not clear to me that that will effectively neutralize anything in the minds of voters, not all of whom are dim.

That said, I'll be happy to vote for her if she is the nominee. A large dose of pragmatism is in order these days.

Posted by aeiou | February 11, 2008 12:35 PM

In a contest with McCain, Clinton would be the clear voice of change and, arguably, her experience and her strength on national security issues would neutralize these selling points of McCain, which would be advantages for McCain "against Obama. -- ARV 12:14 PM

Wow, that is really dumb. How would Clinton be the "clear voice of change" when she aligned with McCain both in authorizing the Iraq war and playing into the White House's attempt to start war with Iran? She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman nonsense and she authorized the Iraq invasion. What would she argue with McCain, that she didn't really mean it? That her policy is different because she at least talks about getting out or Iraq?

And sorry, even if HRC gets the nomination, there's no way in hell she neutralizes McCain's national security credentials (whether they're legit or not) in any way, shape, or form. She's done an admirable job of taking on hawk poses and voting like one whenever she can, but there's no way a Republican war hero who's staked his entire career on national security issues is going to lose that debate to a female Democrat. That may not be fair——I think McCain's world view is insane and childish——but it's the truth. The only way the Democrats can win or affect the security debate is to have someone who offers a clear contrast on the war we're in and on the ideas of preemptive war and hegemony.

With Obama, we could actually have a debate on what America should do with dangerous dictators, amorphous enemies, and our military and economic power. With Clinton, it'll just be an argument over who's got the better (least wimpy) plan for dealing with Iraq.

Posted by tinisoli | February 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Excellent post.

I'm a little worried about a few things, though:

a) at least five tax credits, some quite large, possibly more (used for progressive things, but nevertheless). Meanwhile, at least $300 billion in extra spending. See large budget deficit.

b)indexing minimum wage to inflation. Someone's going to speak to me scornfully in economic-eze here, but I'm worried about that action accelerating the flight of american jobs offshore.

Barack makes the right noises on trade, but this document lacks serious, intentive, heavy-hitting, legal, regulatory and financial changes guaranteed to stop US corporations from going offshore. Without that, large minimum wage hikes could make a lot of people poor.

Posted by glasnost | February 11, 2008 12:39 PM

I think that the criticism that Obama "lacks substance" just comes from his campaign style.

Obama and his campaign have clearly decided that the way to win for them is to get people enthused about the man's persona and background. As a result, that, and not his policy positions, is what gets attention in speeches and ads.

Krugman calls it a cult of personality, but it's true in a way. Obama's campaign is designed to get people enthused with an evangelical zeal in a way that is rare in political campaigns. Given that, it's not really that important for them to talk about a lot of policy details.

Posted by gustav | February 11, 2008 12:39 PM

FWIW, I was told (don't know if it's true) by an Obama campaign staffer that he will give his speech tomorrow night from Madison, Wisconsin - looking ahead to next week's contest.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 12:51 PM

But the great thing is... Obama really does have specific, detailed plans for problems foreign and domestic. More importantly, he has a central theme, core values that inform those plans. "We're all in this together, like it or not, and if we want to fix our problems we'd better listen to each other"

I really don't know what Hillary's central theme is, what her core values are.

Posted by Jennifer | February 11, 2008 12:54 PM

This is silly. You don't say someone has a knack for policy-issues by pointing to some document on their website.

Obama is susceptible to the "empty-suit" attack purely because of the disparity between his debate performances and his speeches, as in the former he chooses his words very carefully and loses that world-famous charisma that he otherwise touts when he's reading speeches. It would be a different issue if that was simply his speaking style (e.g., Gore), but after seeing him in different speaking formats, it's more likley that it is simply a result of the fact that the subject matter is policy. Such stumbling and bumbling shows discomfort with complex issues that I thought people actually wanted in a presidential candidate.

Posted by nvs | February 11, 2008 12:56 PM

I don't really think you "participate in political arguments". You spout what you believe, and often times in a very one-sided, one-dimensional, partisan way.

Posted by Volum | February 11, 2008 12:57 PM

Attended our caucus here in Maine on Sunday and was floored by the turnout and the energy for both candidates - but Obama beat HRC by 2:1 in my town. Lots of independents declaring as Democrats in order to caucus.

Can someone explain to me why Jerome Armstrong hates the Obama campaign. Maybe that's too strong a word. But I was over to MyDD today and could not get why he is so mad.

Posted by lobstakilla | February 11, 2008 12:57 PM

Hillary is running on her "experience" i.e. the "golden years" of her husband's presidency. She has 4 more years as the carpetbagger junior Senator from New York. McCain will run against this experience and against Bill Clinton and will galvanize the right wing. Why get security-lite with Clinton when you can get the real thing with McCain?

I heard a guy from a major news organization say what he's seeing is that most Hillary supporters say they will vote for Obama and many Obama suppporters are torn about supporting Hillary, because of her campaign's tactics no doubt.

Michigan, Florida, Bill Clinton trying to ghettoize Obama by saying "well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina."

Frank Rich had a great column Sunday:

Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.”

It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.

Petey telling lies and hyperbole about Obama. Krugman throwing the "cult of personality" insult at Obama's supporters. I really don't think I can support Hillary. You can't reward the bad behavior of the Clintons or their supporters. It only encourages them.

Posted by Peter K. | February 11, 2008 12:58 PM

I really don't know what Hillary's central theme is

Her central theme is that her primary opponent is an inexperienced, conservative, shallow, black muslim fairy tale.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 1:01 PM

Can someone explain to me why Jerome Armstrong hates the Obama campaign. Maybe that's too strong a word. But I was over to MyDD today and could not get why he is so mad.

Can't claim to read anyone's mind in particular, but: if you threaten to take X away from people who have hitherto simply assumed they had an unquestioned entitlement to X, those people will generally get very angry and nasty. I think we are seeing a fair amount of that at present.

Posted by aeiou | February 11, 2008 1:05 PM

The immigration section of the "blueprint" has maybe 200 words at most. It's as thin as Romney's plan, and that was pretty thin. He doesn't address any of the things that could and would go wrong with his plan. For instance, he complains about a burdened system at the same time as he proposes adding millions of people to the system.

Maybe one of these days I'll get to ask him how long it would take to process all those millions and specifically how long each background check would take. I'd point out that there's no "back of the line", I'd point out all those on his side who currently oppose enforcement and who'd get even more power out of the deal from which to oppose future enforcement, etc. etc.

Obama's not going to look very good at all if he ever gets into a conversation with someone who's familiar with these issues and who isn't shy about showing how someone else is wrong.

Posted by TLB | February 11, 2008 1:08 PM

I really don't know what Hillary's central theme is, what her core values are.

She's Ready from Day One!

This is, in my mind, not only one of the most inane sound bites of all time (right behind "flip-flopper") but is also so patently false. I don't care if you have just won re-election, no administration is "ready on day one" to do anything meaningful. Forming your White House staff, getting things situated, etc. takes time. If there was a true disaster on Day 1 of any administration, I'm sure it would be handled with the help of former staffers and the Joint Chiefs. But to argue that any candidate can truly hit the ground running is a fairy tale.

Posted by drjimcooper | February 11, 2008 1:10 PM

"Such stumbling and bumbling shows discomfort with complex issues that I thought people actually wanted in a presidential candidate.

Posted by nvs | February 11, 2008 12:56 PM"

Yet he was right at the right time about the biggest policy question of the decade and Clinton was wrong. In addition, he explicitly pointed to Iraq's ethnic politics as a potential problem the US military wouldn't be able to handle. That is the type of policy detail that can actually affect policy, especially considering the massive institutional power the prez has over foreign and military policy. Meanwhile, health care plan details matter more in Congress, where a lot of wheeling and dealing changes fundamentally any plan a president has a Congressional surrogate put forth. Clinton sounds like she's running for Secretary of Health and Human Services or Senate Majority Leader, not the presidency, especially due to her unthinking knee-jerk hawkishness.

Posted by Reality Man | February 11, 2008 1:13 PM

Re Frank Rich

Mr. Rich is a fucking asshole. If he thinks that Senator Clinton is being beastly towards Senator Obama, these are love taps compared to the mud the Rethuglican smear machine will throw up. Some of these Obama supporters better wise up if Senator Clinton wins. A vote for McCain or Nader is a vote for more cocksucking fascist shitheads like Sam Alito on the Supreme Court. Take it from somebody who refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey in 1968 over the Vietnam War and has regretted it ever since.

Posted by SLC | February 11, 2008 1:15 PM

it's probably a mistake for a speech to turn into two much of a laundry-list

Can I has job at Atlantic?

Posted by Velvet Elvis | February 11, 2008 1:17 PM

I think you are misreading the criticism or else we are thinking about two separate issues. The criticism I am mildly favorable to isn't that Obama is a substance less huckster (hello Mitt) but that his campaign is not stressing vague, soundbite friendly goals beyond hope and unity. It is not about white papers and plans but more big picture.

When Obama's surrogates/advocates make the Reagan comparison, some agnostics point out that Reagan always stressed supply side economics, increasing military spending and reducing the size of government. If Obama wants to claim a Reagan-like mandate it would seem he needs to stress some policy goals in his campaign. The critique isn't about Obama pleasing policy wonks but about convincing the CW, the great unwashed and Congresspeople that a vote for Obama is a reflection of the public's desire to achieve a few big policy goals. At the moment, a vote for Obama is played as 1)rejection of Clinton 2)desire to move past race 3)for hope and unity 4)and maybe teenage love

(Obviously, Obama can do this in the general but Reagan started in the primaries. In a couple of the speeches I have caught, he has riffed on 'making healthcare affordable' but some critics don't give him credit for that since they want UHC.)

Posted by realist | February 11, 2008 1:21 PM

standard of plodding earnestness that one might want

One, citing white papers or policy books written largely by teams of underpaid Kennedy School and Yale Law grads doesn't prove that we should start considering policy as an area of strength for Obama. Two, insufficient 'Plodding earnestness' isn't the concern about Obama.

Bill Clinton's great genius as a communicator was an ability to explain in common and almost visceral ways how wonky policy details, such as narrow changes to the tax code, could dramatically impact upward mobility and lifestyle for all sorts of Americans. Clinton's enduring popularity is in part because people understood that his penchant for sweating small policy details was a function of his concern about the "little guy." When we talk of "murder by spreadsheet," it gets at this concept that policy details affect actual individual people. Which is why we the people should be concerned about politicians' level of concern for policy detail.

The major concern about Obama is that he's a liberal who's love for "the people" is so great that he can't be bothered with worrying about individual people. I can't say that his jest at John Edwards for saying that his greatest flaw was that he responded intensely to pain he saw around him, allayed any fears.

BTW, not that it matters, but I voted absentee for Obama.

Posted by dry_fish | February 11, 2008 1:30 PM

Re Frank Rich
Mr. Rich is a fucking asshole. If he thinks that Senator Clinton is being beastly towards Senator Obama, these are love taps compared to the mud the Rethuglican smear machine will throw up. Some of these Obama supporters better wise up if Senator Clinton wins.

YES SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER??? Why would Obama's supporters be so masochistic? Having out intelligence insulted, lied to, spat on, etc. then the Supreme Court boogeyman is waved in our face. No wonder so many people drop out of politics, when people on your supposed side behave so badly.

The "Rethuglicans" are overrated in their thuggery. They are a mess this year and will lose. This is just another of the scare tactics of the Clintonistas. Yet another lie.

Posted by Peter K. | February 11, 2008 1:37 PM

alden,

no electrons are expended (law of conservation of matter), they are only moved around some.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 1:47 PM

Re Peter K

1. Mr. Peter K is seriously in error in designating me a Clinton supporter. Just as a matter of fact I am planning to vote for either Edwards or Richardson tomorrow if either of them is on the Virginia ballot. In my opinion, neither Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can win the general election as I don't think the US population is currently prepared to elect either a black man or a woman president.

2. The assholes in Florida and New Hampshire who voted for Nader are responsible for presence of Alito on the Supreme Court. My point is that if Senator Clinton wins the nomination and 2 year olds like Mr. Peter K pick up their marbles and go home, expect more Alitos to be appointed by President McCain. Just don't whine and blame the adults when it happens.

Posted by SLC | February 11, 2008 2:26 PM

I am planning to vote for either Edwards or Richardson tomorrow if either of them is on the Virginia ballot. In my opinion, neither Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can win the general election as I don't think the US population is currently prepared to elect either a black man or a woman president.

And... Richardson and Edwards can? After they've both dropped out of the race? And are lagging about 1100 delegates behind both Obama and Clinton?

Okay. Really productive vote there.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 3:01 PM

Re dry_fish at 1:30pm - he can't be bothered with worrying about individual people

This is the guy who spent 4 years after college in the '80s (1984-88) working with common folks on the streets of south-side Chicago, right? And then dedicated his post-HLS career in the '90s to helping such people through litigation and legislation.

Re David W. at 12:15pm - Since the Social Security Trust Fund is there until at least 2042 to cover any projected shortfall in payroll taxes, it's not necessary to raise payroll taxes at this time.

The cumulative surplus generated by the "trust fund" is not realized today as a pile of cash or gold or Microsoft shares sitting around. It's already been spent on other govt. programs. As of now, it's just an IOU from the Treasury to a special-purpose vehicle, so to speak, of the government. In order to pay off that IOU, assuming unchanged SS payouts, the govt. will need to raise taxes or issue more debt to the public, compared to current level. In fact, the previous sentence is true even today, as the SS surplus begins to shrink and thus contribute less cash to fund the rest of the government. I believe the annual SS surplus is already shrinking and will hit zero by 2018. It may be true that the SS program, considered separately, will by 2042 fully draw down the amount of cumulative surplus generated up to 2018, but I just don't see that as a very relevant concept.

Posted by nbt | February 11, 2008 3:21 PM

If you are reduced to going biography the very least you could do is get it right.

Posted by try again | February 11, 2008 3:49 PM

OK, my mistake. Upon consulting the canon, it seems that he spent only 3 years (1985-88) doing community organizing in Chicago. Everything else I stated is correct.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html

Posted by nbt | February 11, 2008 3:54 PM

J.Bryan - It is always a mistake to think about your vote as being "productive" vs. "a waste". Obviously your single individual vote will not decide the election. We vote because our civic duty is to register our preference. If SLC feels that way about the Dems' optimal candidate, good for him/her.

Posted by nbt | February 11, 2008 3:59 PM

It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.

This is typically shoddy journalism from Frank Rich. 1) he doesn't discuss what evidence (if any) HRC's pollster had. 2) He tries to combat a general statement about trends with ancedotes. That's terrible science.

Here's a similiar example. "X is lying about it historically being dry in Phoenix because he ignores when it rained on A, B, and C dates."

Well actually that proves nothing except it rains on occasion. Terrible - the type of science Republican spout when they say global warming doesn't exist because it's really cold outside now.

I don't know if the unnamed pollster is right. He might not be. But Rich is so willing to claim that Clinton is a racist that shoddy reasoning becomes acceptable discourse.

And I guess by the "Clinton Rules" some Obama supporters will eat it up. Bad for progressives all around.

Posted by Columbia | February 11, 2008 4:01 PM

Mr. Peter K is seriously in error in designating me a Clinton supporter. Just as a matter of fact I am planning to vote for either Edwards or Richardson tomorrow if either of them is on the Virginia ballot. In my opinion, neither Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can win the general election as I don't think the US population is currently prepared to elect either a black man or a woman president.

How much do you want to bet? Did you think Obama would win so many primary states? See, you were wrong then too. I didn't designate you a Clinton supporter. Just pointing out you were falling for their scare tactics.

(Actually I think Hillary will lose, not because she's a woman, so Obama voters staying home will turn a close loss into a crushing defeat, which would be gratifying and wouldn't alter the makeup of the Supreme Court.)

The main gambit the Republicans have is the Southern Strategy, i.e. playing the race card. An Obama presidency would go a long way to neutralizing this.

Posted by Peter K. | February 11, 2008 4:05 PM

It is always a mistake to think about your vote as being "productive" vs. "a waste". Obviously your single individual vote will not decide the election. We vote because our civic duty is to register our preference. If SLC feels that way about the Dems' optimal candidate, good for him/her.

When someone excoriates another poster for the thought of voting for someone like Ralph Nader (or even John McCain), and then turns around and says he's going to cast a futile protest vote for one of two men who aren't even running for president because he's convinced we shouldn't nominate a black man or a woman, yes, I feel that's a problematic stance.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 4:12 PM

I'm an Obama supporter who would vote McCain over Clinton, based on my (possibly wrong) opinion of who's more trustworthy.

I understand the Hubert Humphrey 1968 argument - but ask yourself, which candidate's leadership style is most like Nixon's? Who is most likely to be excessively secretive, and to put their own interests before those of the country?

Reasonable minds can differ - but it's certainly not a slam-dunk that McCain = Nixon.

Posted by Simon | February 11, 2008 4:22 PM

Re Peter K

1. Mr. Peter K is seriously in error in designating me a Clinton supporter. Just as a matter of fact I am planning to vote for either Edwards or Richardson tomorrow if either of them is on the Virginia ballot. In my opinion, neither Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can win the general election as I don't think the US population is currently prepared to elect either a black man or a woman president.

2. The assholes in Florida and New Hampshire who voted for Nader are responsible for presence of Alito on the Supreme Court. My point is that if Senator Clinton wins the nomination and 2 year olds like Mr. Peter K pick up their marbles and go home, expect more Alitos to be appointed by President McCain. Just don't whine and blame the adults when it happens.

Posted by SLC | February 11, 2008 4:57 PM

Re Peter K

1. Mr. Peter K is living in a dream world. I stand by my previous comment that the country is not ready for a black or woman president. Apparently, Mr. Peter K disagrees with this assessment of Senator Obamas' chances. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, hopefully not disagreeably.

2. I am sorry to see that Mr. Peter K doesn't think that Supreme court nominations are of any moment. I have a flash for him. Justices appointed by President McCain will have an adverse effect on this country long after troops have left Iraq and the current sub-prime loan problem has faded into the mists of history, just like the bank failures of the 1980s.

Re JBryan

There's a big difference between voting for Edwards in the primary and voting for Nader or McCain in the general election. If Mr. Jbryan can't see the difference, well, tough noogies. My position is that I will vote for any Democrat running against any Rethuglican, based on Supreme Court nominations (compare Breyer and Ginsburg with Roberts and Alito). Period, end of story.

Posted by SLC | February 11, 2008 5:17 PM

OK, Just watched the speech..

**YAWN**

The same empty nonsese and LIES (he's #2 in PAC and lobbyist money, motherfucker keeps spouting how he doesn't accept any, but sorry Barack, FEC says otherwise) that he spouts everywhere.

How is this video "detailed" whatsoever? It's the same rhetoric as usual, just in a longer format.

I really wish people would hold him to the same accountability as they hold others.

Posted by Volum | February 11, 2008 5:45 PM

Matt must be smoking crack if he honestly believes that the 'Blueprint for Change' document spells out Obama's policy agenda in detail! Did he think we wouodn't click through?Has Matt even read the thing? I doubt it because he's a smart fellow and no smart person could ever propose that a 60 page document could possibly spell out a policy agenda in detail.

This is a joke - this is exactly what us Obama critics mean by a lack of detail. We don't know what he is going to try to do. All we hear about is change and hoping for change. Matt points us to a pamphlet and claims it describes this in detail! Give us a break.

Posted by sbj | February 11, 2008 5:57 PM

Here we go again...

Obama's "Blueprint for Change" on foreign policy:

"Terrorism
Obama will fight terrorism and protect America with a comprehensive strategy that finishes the fight in Afghanistan, cracks down on the al Qaeda safe-haven in Pakistan, develops new capabilities and international partnerships, engages the world to dry up support for extremism, and reaffirms American values."

Once again, morons - exactly HOW will Obama "finish the fight in Afghanistan"? How do you "finish" a fight you should never have started except by abandoning it? Does Obama really expect the US to defeat the Taliban and stabilize the Afghan country? HOW, PLEASE?

Exactly HOW will Obama "crack down on the Al Qaeda safe-haven in Pakistan"? Does Obama have any clue how it is completely impossible - short of nuking the FATA territories completely - to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in those areas? Does he have any clue how fragile the Pakistani government is? Does he have any clue that the majority of Pakistanis despise George Bush and prefer the Taliban and bin Laden over Bush?

Exactly HOW will Obama "develop new capabilities" to fight terrorism? WHERE in any of this does he suggest that changing US foreign policy is the only means of removing the US from being a target for terrorists?

Exactly HOW will Obama "engage the world to dry up support for extremism"? Will he stop supporting the Saudis and Israel? Oh, no, he's already said no to that.

"Iran
Obama has stood up against going to war with Iran, and called for a new approach. He will lead tough diplomacy with the Iranian regime, and offer Iran the choice of increased international pressure or incentives if it stops its disturbing behavior."

Exactly WHAT "disturbing behavior" is Iran guilty of?

Exactly WHAT "tough diplomacy" will Obama engage in? On WHAT basis is "tough diplomacy" required and exactly WHAT is the goal of that "tough diplomacy"?

This is the more of the same ignorant bullshit Bush built his Presidency on.

As to whether any of the rest of the document is specific enough on domestic issues, I can't say, since I'm not interested enough to read that stuff.

But his foreign policy is not only not specific, it's bullshit based on what he does say.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 7:11 PM

Now I looked at this Jefferson-Jackson Day speech.

Christ, THAT is "specific"?

Well, for a philosophy major from Harvard who utters Opinions From On High, maybe it is.

For the rest of us, it's just rhetoric with NO specifics.

Christ, Matt, sometimes your posts are just utterly useless. They seem like you have a quota of posts to make during the day, so you just throw one out there with zero thought behind it.

"Think twice - post once."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 7:17 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Well I'll say this for Senator Obama. Unlike Mr. Hack, he didn't stick a gun in a bank tellers' face and threaten to blow the guy/gal away if he/she failed to empty the cash drawer.

Posted by SLC | February 11, 2008 7:38 PM

[T]he debate Obama is proposing strikes me as a more inviting one than the debate Clinton is proposing.

As far as I know, this (the experience debate) is not the debate Sen. Clinton is proposing to have with Sen. McCain. It is of course one of the debates she is having with Sen. Obama.

What Sen. Clinton is proposing is that her experience will allow her to better defend against an attack from Sen. McCain--an attack on the grounds of experience, to which Sen. Obama remains quite vulnerable.

That does not mean she would herself employ that same attack against Sen. McCain. Given his long years in the Senate, why would she even try such a thing?

From what I have seen, Sen. Clinton proposes to debate Sen. McCain on such matters as how to avert (or ameliorate) the coming recession, how to deal with the health care mess, how to deal with the housing mess, and so on--as well as, of course, whether to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as he proposes.

Posted by Amileoj | February 11, 2008 9:01 PM

[T]he debate Obama is proposing strikes me as a more inviting one than the debate Clinton is proposing.

As far as I know, this (the experience debate) is not the debate Sen. Clinton is proposing to have with Sen. McCain. It is of course one of the debates she is having with Sen. Obama.

What Sen. Clinton is proposing is that her experience will allow her to better defend against an attack from Sen. McCain--an attack on the grounds of experience, to which Sen. Obama remains quite vulnerable.

That does not mean she would herself employ that same attack against Sen. McCain. Given his long years in the Senate, why would she even try such a thing?

From what I have seen, Sen. Clinton proposes to debate Sen. McCain on such matters as how to avert (or ameliorate) the coming recession, how to deal with the health care mess, how to deal with the housing mess, and so on--as well as, of course, whether to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as he proposes.

Posted by Amileoj | February 11, 2008 9:02 PM

[T]he debate Obama is proposing strikes me as a more inviting one than the debate Clinton is proposing.

As far as I know, this (the experience debate) is not the debate Sen. Clinton is proposing to have with Sen. McCain. It is of course one of the debates she is having with Sen. Obama.

What Sen. Clinton is proposing is that her experience will allow her to better defend against an attack from Sen. McCain--an attack on the grounds of experience, to which Sen. Obama remains quite vulnerable.

That does not mean she would herself employ that same attack against Sen. McCain. Given his long years in the Senate, why would she even try such a thing?

From what I have seen, Sen. Clinton proposes to debate Sen. McCain on such matters as how to avert (or ameliorate) the coming recession, how to deal with the health care mess, how to deal with the housing mess, and so on--as well as, of course, whether to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as he proposes.

Posted by Amileoj | February 11, 2008 9:02 PM

Well, SLC, that was more effective in getting a result than Obama's policies will be in either Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

And the further consequences of his policies will be just as bad for everybody directly involved as the further consequences of my act were to me.

OTOH, I'm still here - and a lot of US troops won't be if Obama screws up.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 11, 2008 9:41 PM

i don't get how obama can win a debate on "changing washington". what has he done in his career to make me believe that? what has he done as senator to give any indication of how he actually plans to change washington? he's acted pretty much the same as all the other washington politicians in his time there. on the other hand, mccain actually has made real efforts to change washington. whether you approve or not, there is no denying that the mccain-feingold was some kind of effort to "change washington". and which other senator has actually acted in any real way to unite the government? which senator has crossed the aisle as frequently as mccain to work on the important political matters of the day - kennedy, kerry, lieberman, immigration, global warming, etc etc? no, i don't think the "change washington" debate, or that "unity" idea for that matter, will work against mccain. search elsewhwere. healthcare, abortion, tax cuts for the rich, judges. that's what i'd focus on. i think the "change" and "unity" can only work through the primary. but that should be the end. just my opinion.

Posted by Glenn | February 12, 2008 5:24 AM

i don't get how obama can win a debate on "changing washington". what has he done in his career to make me believe that? what has he done as senator to give any indication of how he actually plans to change washington? he's acted pretty much the same as all the other washington politicians in his time there. on the other hand, mccain actually has made real efforts to change washington. whether you approve or not, there is no denying that the mccain-feingold was some kind of effort to "change washington". and which other senator has actually acted in any real way to unite the government? which senator has crossed the aisle as frequently as mccain to work on the important political matters of the day - kennedy, kerry, lieberman, immigration, global warming, etc etc? no, i don't think the "change washington" debate, or that "unity" idea for that matter, will work against mccain. search elsewhwere. healthcare, abortion, tax cuts for the rich, judges. that's what i'd focus on. i think the "change" and "unity" can only work through the primary. but that should be the end. just my opinion.

Posted by Glenn | February 12, 2008 5:24 AM

i don't get how obama can win a debate on "changing washington". what has he done in his career to make me believe that? what has he done as senator to give any indication of how he actually plans to change washington? he's acted pretty much the same as all the other washington politicians in his time there. on the other hand, mccain actually has made real efforts to change washington. whether you approve or not, there is no denying that the mccain-feingold was some kind of effort to "change washington". and which other senator has actually acted in any real way to unite the government? which senator has crossed the aisle as frequently as mccain to work on the important political matters of the day - kennedy, kerry, lieberman, immigration, global warming, etc etc? no, i don't think the "change washington" debate, or that "unity" idea for that matter, will work against mccain. search elsewhwere. healthcare, abortion, tax cuts for the rich, judges. that's what i'd focus on. i think the "change" and "unity" can only work through the primary. but that should be the end. just my opinion.

Posted by Glenn | February 12, 2008 5:24 AM

Richard: Regarding the diplomacy in Iraq, exactly how much of the game plan do you want him to give away before the kickoff?

IOW, why do you insist on very detailed specifics? How deep into the weeds do you really think candidates need to go? Particularly in a very fluid situation?

Currently both candidates offer more specifics than is usual in presidential contests. Is this actually just an excuse to not support Candidate A over Candidate B?

Posted by KathyF | February 12, 2008 6:42 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

"Well, SLC, that was more effective in getting a result than Obama's policies will be in either Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan."

Yessir, Mr. Hacks' bank robbing activity was certainly effective. It landed him in the slammer for a 9 year stretch.

Re KathyF

Who cares what Mr. Hack wants? He is a convicted felon who lost his right to vote when he stuck a gun in a bank tellers' face and demanded all the cash in the cash drawer.

Posted by SLC | February 12, 2008 8:14 AM

Well, SLC, since I was an anarchist BEFORE being a bank robber, losing my right to vote really isn't a significant issue, now is it?

Kathy: "Richard: Regarding the diplomacy in Iraq, exactly how much of the game plan do you want him to give away before the kickoff?

IOW, why do you insist on very detailed specifics? How deep into the weeds do you really think candidates need to go? Particularly in a very fluid situation?"

I don't insist on "detailed specifics" in the sense that I want to know how many troops he's sending or whatever. I want a clue that he knows that sending troops is not the answer. No where has he provided any indication that he knows what the complexities are in either Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Instead he makes broad statements like "we'll finish the fight in Afghanistan". Well, to me that sounds like a militaristic statement, or at least a statement that indicates that he has a military plan to put forward - when NO military plan can win in Afghanistan except pull out - just like in Iraq.

The same applies to Pakistan. There is no military option for the US in Pakistan. There is no military option against terrorist groups in ANY country. It simply doesn't work.

Obama has not indicated any comprehension of this fact. And it is a fact.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 12, 2008 11:47 PM