So what good are Obama's "platitudes"?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

I share many concerns about Obama expressed by others here. But regarding the comments I’ve seen denigrating his speeches as grand generalities lacking substance, I disagree. If you think about it, the Declaration of Independence is almost entirely composed of general platitudes. The Gettysburg Address even more so. Certainly those are not merely policy documents with a list of particulars. Ideas that are abstract are not necessarily empty, and they may be very powerful.

Even I - a guy who goes by the name DeadElephant_ORG - can see, believe-it-or-not, there is one thing this county needs even more than it needs a new president, and that is a new engagement of its citizens to stand up and be counted for core American progressive values.

Obama’s accomplishment in Iowa of doubling the turnout and bringing in droves of new participants – mostly young people – besides being wonderful and intensely patriotic, impressively demonstrated a capability that sets him apart from all the other candidates from either side. He connects with people. There is nothing about speaking at a higher level that precludes a President from acting at the level of specific policies. As a matter of fact, you can’t do the job of President any other way. Hillary may, as she expects, be “ready on day one” to manage the government, but it all comes down to whether a President can move more Americans to support our progressive agenda. Obama can.

[Egnever]

1. Good post

Agree wholeheartedly.

[Strelnikov_]

2. I agree

IMHO, there is not that much difference between the three 'leaders' regarding platform, especially considering that said platforms will bounce up against the reality of Washington.

We are 'hiring' for a leadership position, an executive, not a technocrat. IMHO the two characteristics we should be looking for, once platform is satisfied, are 1) ability to make reasoned decisions based on the advice of hired technocrats; and 2) the ability to inspire/lead.

I also marvel at the hand-wringing over Obama's 'style over substance'. I seem to remember two recent elections where, afterwards, 'we' where crying that if our candidate could have been more 'personable' and less 'wonky' we could have won. How many times have we heard about finding our 'Reagan', our new 'JFK', our new 'FDR', how could we get some of that 'It's morning again in American' platitude to use in campaigns.

The Chimp failed not due to a lack of experience and political skills. The Chimp failed because of a lack of intelligence, judgment and a badly flawed and morally bankrupt platform.

I also get a kick when it is implied that Obama should have waited. A presidential race is not like the final four where there is a fresh opportunity every year.

His next opportunity would have been, most likely, in eight years, and by then there well could be another 'Obama' competing, with him thrown into the 'Hillary' role as the 'insider'. He has adequately mastered political campaigning based on performance to date. If he wins, experience can be hired.

[ccpup]

3. perhaps it might help to compare

his rhetoric with the action he has (or hasn't) taken in the past as Senator. I suspect the main problem people might have against his speeches is he hasn't necessarily shown the ability to follow up the soaring rhetoric with solid legislative action.

Having a President that can inspire us, although not necessary, is certainly something we can all appreciate. But for this President to be all soaring rhetoric and expertly delivered speeches with an inability to actually work toward keeping the promises he or she has made, that's where there might be a problem.