I have responded at least 20 times to the Obama is empty rheotric, no one knows specifics, claims

[Political Heretic]

Every single time I no - there is dead silence from the other side.

So, once again in yet another thread, the question was again asked What does Obama want to CHANGE? And the accusation was again made that there's no specifics.

So I responded by ONE AGAIN listen just a few of the specifics about the changes an Obama Presidency would bring - I did it in my own words, first, then supplemented additional detail from his platform specifics.

No response. So here it is again.


Here are the changes that matter most to me:

-- Open government changes
-- Trade changes / Tax changes
-- Open Diplomacy policy
-- Labor Stance
-- INDEX minimum wage to inflation, after raising it!

Of course it pisses me off that the moment I reference any of the detailed policy specifics that are available, I am suddenly a mindless twit who doesn't know what my candidate stands for because I don't have every bit of information committed to memory.

I know that part of Obama's proposals include regulating lobbying and adding public accountability to the mix by creating easy to access resources so that I can easily see what money is being spent where and by whom for what purpose. I know that Obama's plan includes putting an end to virtually all no-bid contracts, but requiring that all contracts over a specific low amount (something like 20,000$) be required to be competitively awarded.

I know that he proposes what he calls "fireside chats for the 21st century" which I absolutely love, where he would require cabinet departments to host broadband interactive public meetings on a regular basis among other things.

I know that when I read Obama's proposals for simplifying the tax code, I agreed with them. I know that I support his positions on trade and believe those represent change. I strongly agree with his policy and philosophy toward diplomacy, something that Hillary Clinton disagrees with.

I know that Obama will not only fight to raise the minimum wage, but also INDEX it to inflation which I strongly support. All of these things represent change TO ME.

Now... because no human being can be expected to commit every single detail to memory, I will now reference for you the details on only the specific areas of interest I mentioned...

Here are the details that I care about:

Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.

Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a “contracts and influence” database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.

Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch these debates in person or on the Internet.

Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution.

Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission.

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and sign it into law.

Fight Attacks on Workers’ Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB’s “Kentucky River” decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as “supervisors” who are not protected by federal labor laws.

Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.

Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.

End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue. (Lots of people don't support this -- **I DO**)

[JimGinPA]

1. Stop Trying To Confuse Them With Facts - She's A Woman - That's All That Matters nt

[samdogmom]

2. Thank you for your heroic efforts. It's clear people see and hear only what they want to!

I thank you for your attempt to educate. At least if someone tries to research later and figure out what went wrong--a lack of correct information from the Obama team will not be one of the viable excuses!

[malletgirl02]

3. Thank you for posting this

I appreciate your efforts getting this important information out. I was on Obama's website a few weeks ago, an was very impresses by the detail of his plans, especially on foreign policy.

[Political Heretic]

4. And time #1 that this thread drops off the first page with total silence from Clinton supporters

You who constantly repost the same tired old talking point that Obama stands for nothing and has no substance and his supporters don't know why they support him....

...what's the matter?

[Andy823]

5. Good job

I really think that Obama has come out with some good ideas. I used to be one of those who wanted to know the facts, and I have to admit, that when I see them, I like them! I think he has done a good job of adding more detail in his speaches these days, and that is good! I am pretty much happy with is plans. I supported John Edwards, and I am pleased to see Obama taking on some of those issues that were dear to Edwards, and to his supporters.

Thanks for your post.

[Adams Wulff]

6. You are not alone.

I have seen many threads where the information is spoon fed to Hillary supporters, yet literally ignored.

They won't listen, they won't read, their lack of curiosity is rivaled only by G.W. Bush.

I have tried to bring to Hillary's supporters the policies and positions of Senator Obama, and the silence is deafening.

They don't want links, because moving the mouse and clicking is hard.

When you cut and paste pages of the platform, it's too long, and violates DU rules.

When they are gathered in an Austin TX. bar for a debate watching party, they cheer their candidate while she speaks, and chat among themselves when Barack speaks.

They don't want to read.

They don't want to listen.

They don't want to know.

All they want to do is attack using Clinton's talking points. I guess Hillary and her campaign learned a lot from Rupert Murdoch.

[557188]

7. These are all minor things

Seriously if this is what you call change you're a rather depressing person.

Real change is universal health care, gay marriage, stem cell research, cutting military spending, free education at public universities, universal day care and so on. Obama's change is minor shuffles of a broken down tired system. The only candidates that can say they are for change, for the Democratic party, were Gravel and Kucinich.

[Political Heretic]

10. They are not minor to the people whos lives they impact.

Your argument basically boils down to, neither of the remaining candidates go far enough. That's fine, but I take offense at calling the things I care about "minor." Laying out specifics of a plan to restore Open Government and Government accountability is not "minor" to me. And, its not minor to the country. It's just not as "sexy" as the big dreamy rhetoric of the ideological purist.

Details of plans to restore the strength of Labor in this country, is probably one of the most important things we could possibly do to improve the lives of working Americans. No steps in this direction are minor in my book. But then again, I'm a labor advocate and concerned with reality on the ground - not just ideological rhetoric from the ivory tower of detachment. Trade changes, organizing changes, new laws to protect unions - these things are critically important - not minor.

Raising the minimum wage again, beyond what Congress has passed and then indexing it to inflation is NOT minor, and its a slap in the face to every working family struggling just to get by to say so. It's the details that change lives, friend - not the dreamy abstract wishing for a utopian tomorrow.

As for your laundry list of things that amount to real change - those are a list of "changes" - their a list of "ends." They are a list of things that are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from where our country and government are today. CHANGE is a discussion about HOW you get there - not the fact that you ought to be there.

Never in the course of human history has a complete shift from one side of the spectrum to the complete opposite side happened instantaneously or overnight. What we need are leaders committed to laying the foundation from which to build the next levels of change toward your ideals (and mine), then a next wave of leads need to build the next level, then the next level. The conservatives didn't turn America into the corporatocracy we have today overnight. They did it over three decades. Change is a process, and it occurs in slow gradual steps as you build a consensus along the way. That's how change works.

People who can't figure that out are the real depressing ones.

As far as my personal politics go, I'm a radical leftist. But I'm also educated enough in political philosophy and political economy to understand that if you are really serious about changing America into something that looks a little more like democracy socialism and a little less like corporate fascism, you have to BUILD the foundation for change, and you have to be prepared for that change to evolve over a many years.

What we need this year, in 2008, is a leader that can galvanize support, and lay a foundation for change from which future leaders can build. In this first term, that will mostly mean undoing all of the damage this last administration has done, and building a new revitalized democratic party ready to lead into the 21st century. I believe Obama is the best choice to do that.

[kristopher]

13. Well said. K/R

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Some of those things aren't possible due to our libertarian political culture

Just because Kucinich and Gravel propose those things doesn't mean that they can be done. When someone finds a way to change our political culture then we might have a chance at that. Obama is helping by getting young people to vote.

And some of those things you've mentioned will happen under an Obama Administration.

[Political Heretic]

8. And time #2 that this thread drops off the first page with total silence from Clinton supporters

One exception is the respondent who says neither candidates stand for change and only Kucinich and Gravel did - which I will respond to in a second.

[Colobo]

9. Hillary supporters can't refute your post.

[Political Heretic]

12. Then its going to keep going to the top for all to see the dishonesty of their criticism.

I want a fair fight.

(and before anyone bitches about heath care mailing - I KICKED the thread from a Hillary supporter with information from factcheck.org about the accuracy of the mailers claims. like I said, I want a fair "fight."

[K Gardner]

11. I don't even bother responding to them anymore. Its their favorite tactic. We'll

just bookmark this thread and all the dozens and dozens of others posted here over the months with Obama's policies and initiatives and accomplishments, and paste the link when this resurfaces tomorrow, as it inevitably will. I'm sick of it, as you are.

[Scurrilous]

14. Thanks for posting this.

:thumbsup:

[progressive_realist]

15. The same thing happens if you ask for a list of Hillary's accomplishments

I have come to the conclusion there is no "there" there. The Clinton campaign keeps pushing the meme that Obama has no substance because, in fact, the Clinton campaign has no substance.

[Steely_Dan]

17. It is not a matter of...

a lack of specifics (although, I still believe it is a problem for Obama). No, it is more a matter of whether people actually believe he can do the things he states he can do. I honestly believe that Obama supporters are somewhat naive in their faith that Mr. Obama can actually "change" anything. It is no surprise that his supporters are in large part, of a younger generation. When you are young, it is much easier to suspend your reason for "hope" and "change." I call it "letting your passion over-ride your reason." It is only after living a few years that you realize that it isn't so easy to make change happen...at least not as easy as Mr. Obama would have you believe.

Anyway, aren't most politicians running on "change?" Isn't that the whole idea...that is to change what the current office holder is doing. So, for me, "change" is a pretty empty concept. Everybody wants change...that's not the issue. It's who can deliver change in a PRACTICAL and REASONED way. It is easy to say..."I'm for change." It is quite another challenge to actually make that change happen. Some of us just have a hard time "believing" yet again, that candidate "X" will deliver on his/her promises. Because of this cynicism born from years of broken promises, we tend to look not at the words, but at the actions. We want tangible evidence, not promises.

I guess another way to put it...
I don't want to wake up in the middle of 2009 and discover that Mr. Obama has been cashing checks with his mouth that his skill and experience couldn't cover.

-P

On Edit:

Here's another thought...
The only time in my life I saw real change in this country (although I was a bit young at the time), was when the youth of this country took to the streets. They took to the streets to bring about change...and as far as I'm concerned, the DID bring about change. Today, I see the youth also wanting change. The difference is that they are putting their faith in one person. They have faith that he will be the "agent of change" they so desperately want. For me, and my life experience, you cannot put that responsibility on someone else. YOU have to be the agent of change. At no time (that I'm aware of) has real change happened by putting your faith in someone else. You cannot put that responsibility on someone else and "hope" they will do this for you.

-P

[Political Heretic]

18. Good arguement that I'll respond to, however it doesn't address what has been a CHIEF charge at DU:

You are explaining a much more reasoned position, that it isn't about lack of specifics, but ability to deliver. Very good point, I'm going to engage you on that in a second.

But first, I must point out that your argument doesn't address the fact that countless threads and posts have been made by Clinton supporters not saying what you are saying but actually pushing the meme that Obama has no plan, has no specifics, and that none of his supporters know why the support him.

My post, pretty much points out - again - how categorically untrue that is. And I continue to challenge hillary supporters to respond directly to that. So far, nothing except for you saying, "that's not the issue." Well, I agree its not the issue - BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.

Ok now... on to the response your thoughtful post richly deserves:

I honestly believe that Obama supporters are somewhat naive in their faith that Mr. Obama can actually "change" anything. It is no surprise that his supporters are in large part, of a younger generation. When you are young, it is much easier to suspend your reason for "hope" and "change." I call it "letting your passion over-ride your reason." It is only after living a few years that you realize that it isn't so easy to make change happen...at least not as easy as Mr. Obama would have you believe.

Why do you feel that Obama will not actually "change" anything. And I guess I should ask, what is your definition of "change?" Another poster gave a laundry list of ideologically Utopian things and declared that only those represented "change." Is that how you feel? To me the specifics I listed represent change, and none of them seem beyond the scope of any democratic president.

I guess another way to put it...
I don't want to wake up in the middle of 2009 and discover that Mr. Obama has been cashing checks with his mouth that his skill and experience couldn't cover.

Ok, I understand that. But from my perspective, I've had a great deal of difficulty accepting the argument from Senator Clinton that her experience has all been positive or effectively prepares her to be President. My reasons for feeling this way include: one, the fact that politically speaking I disagree with several Senator Clinton's decisions in Washington and feel they represented a great failure of leadership.

Two, I have strong disargeements with many aspects of the Clintonian vision for the Democratic Party and for America as presented by the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency. It would be unfair to characterize Senator Clinton by the political actions of her husband if it weren't for the fact that she is on the record saying that they work as a team and share the same political vision.

Three, and I know this might upset you, but I have to confess that frankly her management of her political campaign is not an inspiring example of how her experience has prepared her for leadership. She began over confident, declaring to the media that she would be the nominee. She/her campaign made public statements that it would all be over February 5th. When it wasn't, her campaign began to fall apart. At every stage they have been out raised and out performed on the ground. In many states, Obama had three times or more as many field offices. Hillary told the media she had no idea how the Texas primacaucus system worked and that "her people were trying to figure it out right now" - meanwhile, Obama's ground team was already totally on it, assembled and in action. I'm getting a lot of these examples from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Say what you want about the authors opinion, those specific facts of her campaigns disorganization aren't in dispute.

So when Senator Clinton tells me about her 35 years of experience and she is ready to lead on Day one, it rings hollow to me -- I have not seen any examples of that readiness through her campaign.

On the other hand, Obama and his campaign have been seriously efficient. He is the one that has had the political machine this year. And as a relative newcomer he has certainly benefited from some favorable media. But its looney to pretend that's all it is. You can look at the specifics of his ground game in states and see how his organization has totally trounced the Clinton campaign. In many states he built his ground game from nothing. It is a testament to incredible efficiency, organization, leadership and skill.

I'm sorry but to me, he looks like the one who is ready to lead on day one.

[Steely_Dan]

20. Let Me Respond...

First...thanks for your well thought out response. I appreciate when people actually take the time to "reason" instead of shooting from the hip.

I will not defend Ms. Clinton. Everything you have said I think is in large part, quite accurate. The way she has managed her campaign does not give me a lot of confidence in her leadership ability or style. I am not a supporter of either Obama or Clinton.

As far as Ms. Clinton's vision of the Democratic Party goes, I agree with you. I do not see her (nor her husband) as a "progressive" in the traditional sense. So, no argument there.

My issue (as you are well aware) is exactly what you stated...can Obama deliver? While there is no evidence that he can't...there is no certainty that he can either. As a side note: ask yourself what kind of damage Obama can do to all of those that he has brought into the process if he couldn't deliver. Would they become as cynical as I am about the process?

But back to the main point...
The Obama "phenomenon" (like most phenomena), tends to take on a life of its own. That is a little frightening to me. When it takes on a life of its own, it is much more difficult to know what is real and what is not real. You will excuse my cynicism, but I cannot see him successfully bringing such a divided country together to accomplish the rather long list of promises that he is hanging his campaign on. This does not mean that he is a "bad" man...it simply means that I am not sure (Chicago politics not withstanding) that he can stand up to the vicious divisions that exist in our government.

Finally...an efficiently run campaign does not guarantee that you will have an efficiently run government.

Look...I am impressed with Mr. Obama. But these are tough times...maybe the toughest. Wasn't this the time to START the pendulum swinging back to the left? Was this really the time to make Presidential history? Wasn't this the time to get our bearings back and start to turn this ship of state around? Change does not happen overnight. I wish it did...but it simply doesn't.

Don't fool yourself...whoever takes the Oval Office...THERE WILL BE CHANGE. So, "change" doesn't mean much to me. There will be change. After all, all politicians run on "change."

Thanks again for your post.

-P

[intaglio]

25. From what I see from "over here"

The first big change has already happened - Lobbyists and Bundlers are less powerful in the Obama campaign. Both of these groups exchange election funding for access to the Executive, to enforce this they can threaten to take future funding elsewhere. In Obama's campaign they are no longer a major source of funds but very minor; my rough guesstimate is that all Lobbyists, Bundlers, corporations and the massively wealthy together provide less than 10% to 15% of the total funds Obama has gathered.

What this has lead to is Obama going into the next stage of his presidential campaign with no debt - either monitary or moral - which can be used to apply pressure to change his platform. Imagine if a donor says "I will not support you unless ..." an unencumbered campaign can say "Fine, you do that because you and all those associated with you provide less than 1% of any funding to the campaign,"

When I pointed this out on an earlier thread the immediate objection was raised that lobbyists are still claiming special access to the Democratic front runner, they are claiming "Hey, we can work with him," well they would say that, wouldn't they?

The K street crowd have to say that or their reason for getting paid vanishes. What price their are services worth if they only have the same access to the executive as anyone else? This is change you can believe in, I think

[Political Heretic]

27. .

[donheld]

19. Some people have no interest in facts

Only slamming the other candidate.

[Egnever]

21. Outstanding !

It is his open government platform that drew me to him at first. Thank you for the time you took to write this up.

[NMMatt]

22. What is the best thing about all this

Is if McCain tries this approach he will look laughable. Talk about an empty vessel of rhetoric.

[Egnever]

24. I am so looking forward to when Obama can focus just on McCain

[Robert Oak]

23. you don't mention

no real revamping of trade agreements, just not enforceable labor, environmental standards, additional "Private" savings accounts, endorsement of privatization of US public schools, a $500 "tax rebate" to those losing their homes in foreclosure (this is worse than Bush), a 4k universal higher education rebate that he has no explanation on how he would pay for it and the many economics and policy analysis who believe these positions are weak and Hillary's are much stronger for the US middle class.

Since many economists are talking about a complete US economic meltdown, it might be a good idea to read about Hillary's policy positions and wake up.

[Skidmore]

26. Kicking.

Bears repeating often.

[Political Heretic]

28. And time #3 that this thread drops off the first page with total silence from Clinton supporters

Both substantive disagreeing responders, identified as supporting neither candidate, and neither was writing specifically to defend the charge that Obama's supporters don't know what he stands for and that Obama himself has not specifics or substance.

[zabet]

29. He may be considered an empty suit

due to the fact that he has invested
his political capital in self-promotion.
This change could have been being worked
on the whole time he has been a senator.
He has spent much of that time campaigning,
that is why the political capital he has
has been spent on himself and not on change.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Your research is appreciated.

No worries. Some people are here to simply disrupt and have no interest in actual information.