Because when you get down to it, I think that voters really just want a president that's a big whiner.

Yeah. In other news, Clinton has submitted trademark applications for the words "change", "solutions", "real", and "results". These concepts are hers and hers alone.

I agree, @1 and @2, this does not go over well for the Clinton camp. Heck, even McCain's been borrowing phrases from Obama.

Are Hillary and McCain allowed to work together against Obama? It is very bipartisan of her, I'll give her that.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Gandhi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/stewart-blasts-media-cove_n_82021.html

Sounds like someone's trying to get invited on the GOP ticket as a Veep!

One should note the irony that the speech where Obama mentions these proposals, which are decent but not great, have all been in the works for awhile, was meant to set up Obama as a DC outsider who would be able to come up with new and innovate solutions to the same old problems.

If we're really serious about solving the problems of imminent ecological collapse and the continuing third-world-ification of large parts of America, we're going to have to go much farther outside than anything Obama or Hillary or pretty much anyone else is proposing. But then, we'd have to acknowledge that real change doesn't come from above, isn't vote in, and doesn't start with a slogan. It's fought for by the people.

Awww is this the SAME Hillary Clinton in the "Hil-a-ry 4 Me!" video currently burning up the charts on YouTube? Clap ya hands, clap ya hands...

man, obama's comeback was hella good

I don't think the Clinton camp really thought this one through very well... (surprise, suprise!)

So if Clinton and Obama are, as they claim, taking the same stands on the issues, then it's a wash, right? Which obviously means we should go with the person who seems to be the more invocative, charismatic, and inspirational of the two leaders, correct?

Now Clinton folks can't possibly think they can win THAT battle, can they?!?

Y'know, it sucks that we're so divided over Clinton and Obama. Not that I'm changing my opinions, but it still sucks. There's a whole lot of bitter out there. I'm a loyalist at heart (seriously, I'm from Northern Ireland) so I'll back the Democrat no matter who it is.

Whoever you support, once the nomination is final, you need to get in line. If you're not willing to do that, then don't participate in the primaries.

@1-4: The fact remains: your guy, soon to be our guy, needs more, better, and fresher ideas if he's going to beat the Rs. This is why many of us HRC supporters have had a hard time warming up to him. Rhetoric only gets you so far. And no meta-arguments about HRC's political style changes that fact.

@12, by that logic it would sure make a lot more sense for Hillary and Obama to each be focusing their negative attacks on McCain than each other. Spirit of party unity and all that...

If there's any plagiarism in Obama's economic announcement today, it's that he lifted the two prongs, if I may enjoy the opportunity to use the word "prongs" to describe his alternative energy/infrastructure mashup, from--you guessed it--that damn Harper's cover story published last month. That cover story sure is getting around.

Jeez, if Obama thinks he's going to find "more, better, fresher ideas" dumpster-diving behind the Clinton HQ, maybe he's not as smart as I thought.

Obama is like a sugar high. Sweet, energizing, but without sustenance. He also lacks wisdom which can only come from experience. Mrs. Clinton might just win the nomination after all.

God, they want Hillary to win so bad they are even spinmeistering for her.

This is what I hear:

"His ideas are terrible! And fairy tales! They're also exactly like ours!"

No, no, no, and wait what?

SPECIFICALLY which Obama policy would you like more detail on?

You can sit here all day and say he's an empty suit, but can you narrow that down a bit? Do you want me to give you a 50 page reply giving all the details of all his policies?

Or how about this: Pick one of Hillary's policies, and tell me that it contains more specifics than Obama's. We shall compare.

Personally, I think you're just pissed that his speeches aren't boring.

A second thought: Haven't people been noting that their policies were extremely similar since, oh, early 2007?

now hillary will fight
for what we all know is right
this lady knows how to lead
in this predidency race she will succeed

There's be a lot of "you say he's an empty suit" going around, but I haven't actually heard anyone say Obama is an empty suit. Huckabee is an empty suit. Obama might be a televangalist for the Starbuck set, a charismatic leader without much to support him, form without content, even the bourgeoisies tool to buy more time and distract folks from the real problem, but I've never seen him actually called an empty suit by anyone but his supporters. Where is this coming from?

using republican attacks mobilizes your democratic base how?

If you want to know who called him an empty suit, fucking google it. You could also use a dictionary of idiom to discover that you, johnnie, just called Obama an empty suit.

Can you please tell where you are feeling a need for more substance? Can you tell me which of Clinton's policies has more beef than Obama's? Just pick one because I don't have time to go through every single one of them with you.

e@20:

I don't want to go tunneling through Obama's web site. I WANT HIM TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE FUCK HE WILL DO ONCE HE GETS ELECTED.

I took a look at his speech before the Potomac Primaries, for instance, and the only policy item I could find was a $4000 tax credit for community or national service.

You'll notice I presume he'll be the nominee- this is not meant (at least by me) as an HRC screed. It's totally clear to me that Hillary won't win more than a handful of remaining states, and I want Obama to start adding some meat to his fucking speeches!

empty suit = soaring rhetoric lacking in substance. "fairy tale" and "smoke and mirrors" also fit the bill [no pun intended], as do "televangelist for the starbuck set", "charismatic leader without much to support him", and "form without content", and so on et cetera.

it must suck to be hillary, having her ass handed to her by a bourgeoisies tool to buy more time and distract folks from the real problem. that's gotta hurt.

@26

Sven, that's what I'm saying. You want Obama to put his audience to sleep with dull speeches. You want him to go from rockstar to Al Gore. You want him to sound like the smartest kid in class, like John Kerry.

John McCain would very much like Obama to do that too. Ain't going to happen. Have you not noticed that the way Obama plays this game is working?

Obviously johnnie/brandon (same idiot, different name) can't use Google to look up "Obama +policy" and find out Obama's substance.

Empty rhetoric by the empty headed.

Oh elenchos, tirelessly swaying the uncoverted as always. There is infact improtant connative differences between 'empty suit' and 'televangelist for the starbucks set.' First of all, the second is awesome. Secondly, the term 'empty suit' implies someone who is lacking originality, ineffective and unoriginal and particularly one who goes through motions without any conviction or substance. Yes, some of these things could be said of Obama, but that's not the general critique of those who find him offputting. For me, personally, it's that Obama offers the same product (look at his voting record compared to Hillary) with new, and disengenious packaging.

So, next time you accuse someone of calling Obama an empty suit (which seems to be a 'meme' of your own creation) please accuse others of calling him a televangelist for the starbucks set instead.

dear cato,

you obviously do not understand sarcasm very well. either that or you're being sarcastic and *I'M* the one who doesn't get it. this is entirely possible - i always bomb the reading comp portion on standardized tests [oh, the shame, the shame...].

yours in idiocy,
-brandon [or AM I? bwahahahHAHA!!!!!]

Before anyone accuses Obama of having no substance again, read through this section of his site and come back with your specific problems with it. It's there for you.

What? You don't want to spend your time going through all that? Well, maybe you can understand then why he doesn't beat America over the head with all of it at every opportunity.

Cato, I am an entirely different idiot(savant!) from Brandon. And I've looked at Obama's policy and it doesn't particularly impress me (nor does any other candidates, seem my post @8). I know Brandon and I both post under generic 'boy' names, but we are not the same.

@32 thanks for the link.

johnnie, your schitck is boring. Repeating how unimpressed you are is nothing but a cry for attention if you won't say what it would take to impress you. If you think repeating it is going to make some new and better candidate alight from the heavens, you would be wrong. As far as I can tell, you have nothing to contribute.

elenchos, I am so sorry for boring you. You know it's bad when even drag is a drag. But I think I've made it clear, with my responses to you as well as the rest of my posts, what it would take to impress me - people realizing that change and progress does not come about from an organized ritual every four years, but people acting themselves to bring change about.

I've also made it clear why my support goes to Hillary. More or less all things being equal (though they aren't, and I generally go with Hill's side in these cases) I will support the candidate that lies the least about who they are and what they can accomplish.

If you want to buy into some typical mythology about change being isolated to individuals and isolated rituals, go right ahead. I think you're wrong and I will continue to express that belief. I'm not looking for new and better candidates, I'm looking for new and better, and smarter, people.

COMMENT DELETED (SOCK-PUPPETRY)

We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

Hey Sven, could you tell us what wonderful new and innovative ideas Hillary Clinton has? Hell, most of the time she seems to be basing her appeal on nostalgia. "I'm Hillary Clinton. Vote for me and we'll turn the back the dials on the wayback machine to the 20th century and party like it's 1999 (again)".

While you're at it Sven could you explain to me why I should trust Hillary Clinton given the fact that her "35 years of experience" includes accepting donations from a felon (Norman Hsu) and the wife of a felon her husband pardoned (Denise Rich), voting for the PATRIOT act, the war and Kyl/Lieberman and her complicity during her husband's administration with the signing of DoMA, NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In doing so you are not allowed to bring up Tony Rezko or Exelon. You have to explain to me why I should vote for someone who has a record as pro-war and pro-corporate power as most Republicans do. Oh, and "because she's pro-choice", or "would be America's first vaginal American president" are not acceptable reasons.

Wile, you shouldn't trust Hillary for the very reasons that you mentioned. You also shouldn't trust Obama for the reasons that you demand not be mentioned. Doubly, you shouldn't trust claims of change that cannot be sustantiated with systematic overhauls. You should trust yourself and start acting for change, instead of trusting politicians to do it for you.

wile_e@38: why do you even mention Clinton? What part of...

You'll notice I presume he'll be the nominee

...don't you get? I'm speaking as a Democrat talking about our presumptive candidate for President.

elenchos: Jesus Christ, I thought you were one of the smart ones. It's not a fucking either/or, dude! If Obama doesn't balance details with oratory, he will lose the general election. Gore didn't lose the election because he cared about the issues- he lost because he was an uninspiring tool. Soaring rhetoric will not be enough to win the election, especially given Obama's lack of national experience compared to McCain.

Are you Obama fanatics going to be like this after Clinton goes away- refusing to see anything Obama does as anything other than perfect?

Oh, and people who say "go read xyz page off his web site?" That's a bullshit response. *All* the candidates have reams of position papers. What matters is what they talk about when they have a half hour (or an hour) because it speaks to their priorities.

Sheesh.

What's so rich about Hillary's campaign now accusing Obama of stealing her proposals is that Hillary could just as well be accused of pilfering her biggest proposal, her health-insurance plan.

I remember very well how Edwards put out his health-care plan last year. Then Obama put out his. Then months went by before Clinton finally put out hers. I remember very well John Edwards making a statement at the time how Hillary had just come out with his health-care plan.

Of course, what's really rich is the whole idea of the Clinton campaign seeking backup from the McCain campaign. Bipartisanship indeed, elenchos @4. I'm sure the McCain folks are letting the Clinton minions know, "If you need any more help, just let us know."

here's an interesting tidbit which i just learned, that i present as a present for those of you that have read all the way down through this lame thread. it's from the last paragraph of this new york times article:

In Texas, Mr. Penn said Mrs. Clinton would be helped by the Latino vote — which he said could ultimately be as much as 40 percent of the electorate.

But Mrs. Clinton faces another problem there in the form of that state’s unusual delegation allocation rules. Delegates are allocated to state senatorial districts based on Democratic voter turn-out in the last election. Bruce Buchanan, a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, noted that in the last election, turnout was low in predominantly Hispanic districts and unusually high in urban African-American districts.

That means more delegates will be available in districts that, based on the results so far, could be expected to go heavily for Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton, Dr. Buchanan said, “has got her work cut out for her.”

this delegate shit sure is esoteric.

Big Sven @40: Are you Obama fanatics going to be like this after Clinton goes away- refusing to see anything Obama does as anything other than perfect?

I've got to say, Obama's not perfect in my book. There are a number of policy points and proposals of Obama's that trouble me. Policy-wise, Obama is no Al Gore.

And yet Al Gore is no Al Gore. By that I mean, the Gore we worship today is Citizen Gore, not Candidate Gore, circa 2000.

Set aside the few lame proposals. With Obama you still can see the thought process of someone who is able to view issues outside of the usual left/right continuum.

Sven,

I don't agree that debating skill matters that much in a president. Everyone acts like it is required in order to get elected, but look at Bush's repeated terrible debate performances.

Debating is bizarre: you can't just answer the question. You have to avoid looking too wonky. You have to be entertaining so the crowd doesn't get bored. You have to avoid looking too mean -- that is, you can lose a debate if you kick your opponent's ass. It's nuts, and history shows it doesn't matter.

Then, once you're in office, you don't have to debate anybody ever. You forget about your debate skills until you're up for reelection.

I'm not arguing that Obama is perfect. But he needs to be given full credit for how successful he has been. It's a mistake to constantly explain away his victories with some excuse. It's the black vote. It's the caucus rules. It's the weather. Maybe it's Obama. I don't mean he's perfect, I only mean that what he does works.

The polls don't just say people like it over Hillary's thing; they like Obama's thing over McCain's thing too. His experience and attachment to the failures of the past is his liability. Average joes are never going to think a lot of smarty pants recitation of policy is going to overcome McCain's insider cred. Best not to go there. Better to distance yourself from what supposedly makes McCain so great.

But Obama has changed up his game for different circumstances, and his campaign has not been stubborn or rigid. If they see a real need to add a lot of heavy stuff to his speeches, they'll add it. I just don't see why you would change a speech that attracts overflow crowds everywhere.

You do have to admit, that woman at Key Arena was clinically dead right there on the floor in front of him, and his laying on of hands brought her back. I read all about it at obamaisfromthefuture.com, which is not as fanatical as it sounds.

(p.s. Thanks for not blaming me for the sock puppetry above and big thanks to the Slog staff for their vigilance.)

Big Sven @ 26

I don't want to go tunneling through Obama's web site. I WANT HIM TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE FUCK HE WILL DO ONCE HE GETS ELECTED.

So let me see, you've got all of this time to hang around on Slog but you don't have the time to look over Obama's website.

wile_e@45, this is the second time in one thread that you've (willfully or not) misread my comment. What part of...

*All* the candidates have reams of position papers. What matters is what they talk about when they have a half hour (or an hour) because it speaks to their priorities.

...don't you understand?

elenchos and cressona-

Obama has found a way to talk about politics in a way that transcends the bitter partisanship of the last decade. Absolutely.

But I don't think it would just be "debating" to add some details of what he would actually push for once elected. Some people will (and have) responded purely to the vision that Obama conveys, but others will need to hear from the candidate what he will specifically do beyond the vision.

A lot of Clinton supporters, for instance, are clearly detail-oriented ;-) and we wouldn't want any of them to sit out the election, would we?

@9 (Andy),

Ahahahaaaa!

I'd never seen that video. It's amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

Let me guess Johnnie. You wanted to be a goth but couldn't do it because you really like wearing Dockers.

You essentially claim that the whole process is rigged and corrupt and that there are no substantive difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that matter in the face of your sophomoric, poorly thought-out and entirely unoriginal attempts at making a meta-critique of, well of everything really. Wow, you're looking for "...for new and better, and smarter, people.", yeah. So was the East German government after June 17th, 1953. It's a Brecht reference, I don't expect you to know it.

But then Johnnie, then you state that despite your disdain for, well, for again, for everything. that you will descend from the Olympian heights in which you dwell to linger amongst we foolish mortals and our insignificant dalliances and that in doing so you have, ceteris paribus, chosen to support Hillary Clinton because she is the less dishonest of the two candidates in not promising changes which everyone who is hip to your meta-critique of "like the whole fucking system man!" knows are meaningless anyways.

And then you say that I should "...should trust yourself and start acting for change, instead of trusting politicians to do it for you." Nice, nice, very Tony Robbins. Isn't "acting for change" such a great phrase? Whenever you use it everyone assumes that you're acting for changes that they agree with and think are good. They never think "Hmmmm, you know what, Dick Cheney was acting for change. He wants to change America into a dictatorship". There's a whole fucking bunch of people out there who I really wish would knock it off with their "acting for change" and get right with my "acting for change".

But despite my deconstruction of your pathetic bullshit meta-critique you have convinced me. You are right. I now trust in myself in a way that I never have before. I now realize that I can act for change. I now realize that I am uebermensch and I can do anything. I stand astride the world like the character in an Ayn Rand novel, or a bold and marching worker in a Stalin era socialist realist propaganda poster.

I now realize that even though Hillary has been in multiple documented fund-raising and governance scandals that Obama is just as bad as she is. Sure he hasn't been in as many scandals yet, but he's younger than Hillary, give him time. I now realize that even though Hillary Clinton was either stupid enough to believe George W. Bush's WMD bullshit, or that she cynically voted for the war as a mere political ploy to look more hawkish, that Barack Obama is just as bad. Sure, he didn't spend five years kissing George W. Bush's ass, but he's younger than Hillary, give him time. I realize that despite the fact that her husband was willing to throw anyone under the bus that he had to, gays, workers, Americans in general that Michele Obama is probably as much of an evil scheming asshole as Bill Clinton is.

I have seen the light! The TRUTH has been revealed to me by an angel with a fiery sword. I have found the Urim and the Thummim and read the golden tablets. A burning bush spoke to me. I've reached OT LXIX and I'm CLEAR I got my mind right and I love Big Brother. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go out and start acting for change right now.

Ceteris paribus I am supporting Barack Obama, because there are two huge differences between him and Hillary Clinton. He is attractive and has charisma, and she does not. I also wouldn't mind having sex with his wife, whereas there are no members of the Clinton family that I would want to have sex with even if I were extremely drunk. His children are also much more attractive than Chelsea Clinton and I have no doubt that he will age more gracefully once out of office than Bill Clinton has.

I also really, really, really like the idea that if Barack Obama is elected bunches of insecure white guys are going to be wondering if their wives are fantasizing about being fucked by his huge black cock. I want to go up to guys like that and say "Dude, did you ever think that your girlfriend is thinking about being fucked by President Obama when you're drilling her".

Sven, I get your frustration that Obama is less than detailed in many of his public performances (and that's what they are at this point...dude has got is down...he's the Mike Daisy of the political world right now).

But I think you're overlooking two things others have said in this thread.

Being highly detailed and specific in your speeches may not play well for most Americans (see Al Gore and John Kerry, who actually turned voters off with their wonkiness).

Second, what Obama is doing so far is really working. People are eating it up. Why in god's name would you change that? If the crowd came to hear the old standards, you run a risk playing the experimental tracks off your latest CD.

I'm with you...I'd love to hear more wonkiness...but as the science dudes pointed out in their thread, many Americans actively dislike intellectuals. They just don't trust them. Which is why, as much as you or I may not believe, so many folks liked Bush when he ran.

And he was the emptiest suit in living memory.

Clinton is not promising universal health care, she is providing universal health coverage, which doesn't do a hell of a lot for people who can't afford their copays, coinsurance, and deductibles.

Sven @47,

I completely understand; platform is of ultimate importance to me also. And, as you might know, I support Obama entirely at this point, and I don't feel I'm compromising.

At his rally here in Seattle, he touched on issues from transparency in government to foreign policy to emissions standards. He does have a platform, and it's just what we want.

But demanding "specifics", which I assume means numbers and dates and timelines, is really not useful or even honest, because any plan of the President's must push its way through Congress. Besides that, it's silly to promise a 45-day turnaround on something when you don't have that control, or a $58-million dollar cost on a plan that's merely been outlined.

Obama taught constitutional law for many years. He's not lacking in substance-- Iowa voters got a great little booklet called "The Blueprint for Change", available on the website in PDF. He's talking about what he wants to do. He's got integrity and ideas and the attitude that will get them through Congress with more than just a 51%.

I'm an educated Latina and I love Senator Clinton for her intelligence, her social work, her advocacy. I just think Sen. Obama is a better candidate for this time. There will be other educated, capable women in politics; she's not our only chance. But Obama has an effect on people that's uncommmon for someone in our camp-- to say the least.

What a bunch of interesting posts - energy and dogged debating.

Can we say NEW topic?

Which leadingfigure - a woman - should Obam choose for his VP? ( Hillary is an obvious call, but, nobody think she would assent)

I say Senator Diane Feinstien of California. I think this chioce could cement his victory and call Mc Cain to task if he does not have woman VP.

Thoughts? And by the way, Clinton proposes better policy, incl. more specifics on health care and a freeze on foreclosure. Many more detained " this is what I will do as soon as" ... public statements.... Let's hang together and stop the warmonger McCain from running the war machine.

"Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will also assist individuals who purchased homes that are simply too expensive for their income levels by helping to sell their homes. The fund will help offset costs of selling a home, including helping low-income borrowers get additional time and support to pay back any losses from the sale of their home and waiving certain federal, state and local income taxes that result from an individual selling their home to avoid foreclosure. These steps will ensure that individuals who have to sell their homes will be able to quickly regain stable financial footing. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama’s increased penalties on lenders who acted irresponsibly and committed fraud."

Also, compare:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Both are extensive and fairly specific, but not overly so.

Peace!

@53: DiFi? Not a chance. The dirty laundry there would fill a mega-mansion of closets.

If he wants a woman, I would bet on Napolitano or Sebelius.

If he wants to sew up the Latino/western/foreign policy/experience/ heavyset VP with gravitas vote it'll be Richardson.

If he wants a white male and maybe some southern cred, I would bet on Mark Warner.

Oh my. Did I hit a nerve, wile? Thanks for the cute post though. I would actually respond, but I'm out the door in two minutes.

gnossos @55 - Sebelius is not an actual humanbeing. Did you see the D response to the state of the union?

gnossos and V-

Why would Obama need to change a winning strategy? Because the general election voters are different from the Democratic Primary voters. And even there, a sizable fraction of the Democratic Primary voters want more details, too. It's not "wonky"; it's about what he would actually *do* as President.

One of the arguments from the Republicans will be that Obama is intentionally vague so that both progressives and moderates can project whatever policies they want on him, but that real leadership requires making CHOICES, and that we don't know what choices he will make.

And while I like Obama far too much to compare him to Shrub, I will say gnossos that your mention of Bush's tactic of only talking generalities is one of the reasons my mother voted for Clinton over Obama in the MN caucus (one of about five people in the state, evidently.)

Perhaps it is too early for this conversation. Obama has not yet gotten the nomination, after all, with HRC still leading in OH and PA and perhaps TX.

I will return to this point after he does so.

Johnnie @ 56 - out the door in two minutes. Hmmm, is there a sale on Morrissey and Joy Division CDs down at down at Easy Street that you have to go to?

As for picking Dianne Feinstein as the VP candidate no fucking way. Dianne Feinstein is awful! Feinstein's only progressive credential is that she's pro-choice. She bent over and grabbed her ankles for the Bush administration on the Mukasey nomination. She voted in favor of the FISA bill. She voted in favor of the Iraq war (She now regrets it claiming that she was "misled" by George Bush, which is rich, because if you can be misled by a retard then what does it say about your intelligence?) and her husband is a defense contractor who has benefited from her position as a senator. She supported the flag desecration amendment, indeed she was the Democratic co-sponsor and she's owned and operated by Hollywood and has supported legislation such as the DMCA.

Feinstein is like an unholy mash-up of Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and Duke Cunningham. She's also 74 years old (and with any luck the evil old bat is going to die soon). If Obama wants to pick a war-mongering, corporate cock-sucking, authoritarian asswipe of a Bush supporter as VP he should just offer the job to John McCain or Hillary Clinton.