Reply #36: Yes, it was a great speech.

[metalluk]

I'm wondering if you also had a chance to read Clinton's policy speech, today, on Iraq and the details of her plan to begin withdrawing troops as soon as she took office (which contrasts so sharply with statements made by an Obama advisor to the BBC that Obama might not actually honor his pledge to begin withdrawing troops within 16 months after he is elected president). I'm wondering if you noted the endorsement of Senator Clinton by Rep. Murtha (a staunch oppenent of the war), saying "Her experience and careful consideration of these issues convinced me that she is best qualified to lead our nation and to bring credibility back to the White House."

Or are we, as a nation, so thirsty for stirring rhetoric (advancing lofty ideals but with no specific plans for moving toward those ideals) that we've lost all interest in tangible proposals from candidates?

I very much liked what Barack Obama had to say and there's no denying that Americans need that kind of broad guidance in relation to race issues and addressing the continuing problems of poverty and lack of opportunity in disadvantaged communities all around the country. Yes, he is articulating core Democratic values. But where's the beef, the specifics, the plan of action? I've studied many of the speeches by both candidates as well as their policy statements, on Iraq, the economy, and other key issues. The difference is not merely evident in speeches delivered to the multitudes at rallies. Turn instead to the policy statements of the two campaigns and the difference in substance is just as evident (and more so after taking into account proposals borrowed from others).

Our Democratic candidates provided two great speeches today, one in the style of a minister on a pulpit and the other in the manner of a pragmatic political leader. Isn't this campaign about electing someone to operate the machinery of government so we can move toward solutions for the countless tangible problems confronting the nation, or is it, instead, a campaign to elect some sort of national evangelical minister, motivational speaker, or group psychotherapist specializing in race relationships?

I am proud of the ideals of the Democratic Party but I can't be proud of a Party that puts forward a candidate for the Presidency with far too little significant political or managerial experience and who builds a campaign around vague ideals rather than substance. We've just gone through eight years of born-again Christian leadership and merely substituting a liberal faith-based approach for a conservative faith-based approach is not my idea of the kind of change I can believe in or support.