by Christi Parsons and John McCormick
Two hours into a town hall meeting in Texas, it was clear that Barack Obama wasn't close to finishing talking. He had deliered an eight-minute answer on health care, after which a few dozen people started leaving.
"Just relax," Obama told the remaining audience. "Take your time."
For a speaker best known for his lofty and airy rhetoric, it's an ironic reality that Obama's public appearances very often turn into drawn-out dissertations. In fact, read side-by-side with the other candidates' current stump speeches, the Obama script makes at least as many references to policy proposals as do theirs.
For more on this analysis of the stump speeches, see this story in Sunday's Tribune, appearing now in the early editions and here in the Swamp:
Barack Obama: Analyzing his stump speeches
Yes they are filled with platitudes, but they discuss policy as much as his opponents' speeches do
By Christi Parsons and John McCormick
Tribune correspondents
February 24, 2008
SAN ANTONIO -- As Barack Obama's town hall meeting stretched into its second hour, it was clear the candidate wasn't anywhere close to finishing.
Obama had given an eight-minute answer to a question on health care, after which a few dozen people began leaving the outdoor plaza.
"Just relax," Obama told the remaining audience members. "Take your time."
For a speaker who is best known for his lofty and airy rhetoric, it's an ironic reality that Obama's public appearances very often turn into drawn-out dissertations.
In fact, read side-by-side with the other candidates' current stump speeches, the Obama script makes at least as many references to policy proposals as do theirs.
Kindly put, though, those ideas aren't the crowd-pleasing part of his presentation. Also, they come from a candidate so new to the national scene--with just three full years under his belt in the Senate--that opponents question if he knows whereof he speaks.
And that may be what helps to fuel the criticism from detractors that Obama speaks mostly in "platitudes."
"Is it a fair criticism to say they have a lot of platitudes in them? It's accurate," said David Zarefsky, a Northwestern University professor who studies campaign rhetoric. "That's what stump speeches do. They're to capture an audience, to motivate people."
By reaching that height too well, he says, a stump speech can actually fail.
"There's a deep-seated cultural ambivalence we have about eloquence," Zarefsky said. "We seek it out, especially from leaders in times of crisis. On the other hand, we're suspicious that someone who is talking really well is putting something over on us."
Ambitious speakers in the past have found themselves vulnerable to the criticism. Robert F. Kennedy was questioned about who would actually pay for all of his noble plans. Gary Hart spoke grandly about "new ideas," only to be hit by a blunt rejoinder quoting a hamburger commercial: "Where's the beef?"
For his part, Obama has been criticized repeatedly as a speaker with more style than substance. Likely Republican nominee John McCain recently said that "to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas ... is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."
He also said that Obama's speeches lack specifics.
But lately, at least, Obama's stump speech has been heavy with them.
In San Antonio, where Obama delivered a typical version of his current stump speech, his address veered at one point into a two-minute description of his health-care plan. He mentioned the age cut-off for children on their parents' plans, the estimated cost reduction of premiums for those with private health insurance and a time frame for implementation.
He outlined the high points of his energy plan with numbers and industry jargon, calling for strict caps on greenhouse emissions, increases in car fuel-efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon and creation of green-collar jobs, right down to those working on "cellulosic ethanol."
He ticked off the dollar figures he says working families and senior citizens could save with his economic plan, and promised to raise the minimum wage yearly to keep pace with inflation.
There are still mostly soft edges to Obama's stump speech, for instance his oblique promise within the economic plan to "strengthen Social Security and allow [seniors] to keep more money."
"We need service workers to get a decent wage and decent benefits," he said, without suggesting exactly how that might happen.
But compared with rival Democrat Hillary Clinton's current stump speech, that's not a stark contrast. Over the past few months, Clinton has begun to speak proportionally in more human terms about the hardships of working people.
She defines the campaign in terms of individuals, citing people with "mortgages they can't afford, medical bills that wiped out their life savings, tuition bills that cut short their children's dreams, who work the day shift and the night shift because they want the world for their children."
It's about scientists who want to do stem cell research, construction workers who want to rebuild the country and service members who wear the uniform of their country, she says.
"I see an America where college is affordable again for hard-working families and students," she says, and where "America is respected around the world again."
With President Bush out of office and John McCain defeated, she suggests, the country can work toward the America she envisions. She then alludes to her plans and policies--which she has previously presented in policy speeches and laid out in detail on her Web site--but doesn't generally go into the nuts and bolts.
These days, Clinton holds fewer of the lengthy question-and-answer sessions that once showcased her dexterity with public policy.
McCain now is in a different phase of his campaign from the Democrats. Since he began to lock down the Republican nomination and needed to travel to more states each day, he shifted to rallies with shortened versions of his speech--sometimes only 10 minutes in length.
One thing he has not abandoned as he moves from primary candidate to presumptive nominee is his availability to the media. Almost without fail, McCain takes questions from reporters at every campaign event--sometimes several times a day, and at length.
Interestingly, as the campaign continues, each candidate's rhetoric adapts to acknowledge that of the others--almost as if evolving into a three-way conversation.
Clinton says that "speeches don't put food on the table," and Obama echoes the idea in short order with his own spin.
Clinton tells voters, "Your voices are the change we seek," an idea similar to Obama's "We are the change that we seek."
And both Democrats have sounded the strains of former Democratic candidate John Edwards.
Like McCain, Clinton and Obama frame the other party's ideas in their own words and then criticize them. McCain criticizes Obama as lacking in specifics; Obama responds with detail.
But Zarefsky notes that what candidates say on the stump doesn't represent the full context of the campaign conversation.
When critics suggest that Obama's speeches "don't put food on the table," they are arguably alluding not just to his rhetoric but to his résumé.
Before he joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, Obama's time in public office consisted of eight years in the Illinois legislature.
"It's a reasonable inference," Zarefsky said. "This does connect up to the differing levels of experience of the candidates."
Clinton has found that talking directly about what she sees as Obama's lack of experience hasn't "gotten a lot of traction," said Zarefsky. "So this is a different twist to try to put on that same idea."
In other words, the criticism of Obama has inverted from the argument that he's "no action" to one that says he's "all talk."
Obama has clearly changed his stump speech to adjust to the new message, but says he disagrees with the premise.
"Let's be clear, speeches don't put food on the table," he said recently. "But the only way that we're going to bring about change is if all of you get excited about change."
Tribune correspondents Jill Zuckman, Rick Pearson and Jason George contributed to this report.
cparsons@tribune.com
mccormickj@tribune.com
• 
• 
• 
Comments
It seems like the people pushing the "no substance" meme the most are those who paid no attention to Obama between November 2004 and November 2007. In the interim, including in his stump speeches last summer, he was focused almost singularly on getting-things-done in the senate and talking about policy on the trail.
I think he's still working on finding a proper balance between inspiration and policy prescriptions, but for the commentariat to claim that he's light on substance shows how little attention they've paid to Obama until this year.
Posted by: Ed | February 23, 2008 1:16 PM
It isn't enough to just discuss policies. Obama can say the sky is green in speech after speech, but that doesn't make it so.
Likewise, when Obama promotes immigration "reform", he fails to note how many years it would take to do backgroundchecks on all those illegal aliens. Either it would take as much as a decade, or the checks would be extremely superficial.
In the first case, we'd have millions of new illegal aliens while still processing the old ones. In the second case, plenty of criminals and even terrorists would get to become citizens.
So, even while he discusses policy, he doesn't mention which of those it's going to be.
The solution to this is for regular citizens to go to his appearances and ask him the questions the MSM won't, and then upload his response to video sharing sites.
Posted by: TLB | February 23, 2008 1:24 PM
To: B. Obama, As my president I would, like others would Love to KNOW what You will do to bypass a bill that Bill Clinton passed when he was president, to Stop the Department Of Education to collect Student Loans from People that do not owe them? I would like to know if a law can be passed after a past president made it a law? I personally know some one who has been struggling with a loan they do not owe and because Bill Clinton passed the law, he can not do anything about it and I think it is wrong for our Govenment to take advantage of people and it be ok. I only want the TRUE FACTS!! Thanks.
Posted by: April | February 23, 2008 1:31 PM
Yet another piece "clarifying" Saint Obama for the masses. He's like a puppy the media follows around, cleans up after and pats on the head.
Posted by: Derrick | February 23, 2008 1:47 PM
When we start mass producing nuclear power plants I will then assume others are taking CO2 seriously. Till then its just more socialist garbage not worth investigating.
Posted by: whatnow | February 23, 2008 2:12 PM
This article is filled wit platitudes.
Posted by: watasj | February 23, 2008 2:19 PM
Media applies different rules for Obama and Clinton. One classic example being Carl Bernstein
"We need biography to choose the president. If we had had biography in 2000 -- real biography that was the best obtainable version of the truth about George Bush -- I don’t think he would be president and I don’t think we would be in the catastrophe that we are in today in the United States and the world with this disastrous presidency. Now we have real biography about Hillary Clinton and I hope we have it about all the candidates".
Now Carl Bernstein is not applying his own theory on electing the next President. He claims Obama is a movement but, doesn't know why and he is fine with that.
Posted by: Vic | February 23, 2008 2:54 PM
i come to the conclusions if people are for obama his speeches are great, if not they either say he doesn't give enough info if he does then they say its too long.
he should just keep doing what he's doing that got him there, he wasn't supposed to last past Iowa caucus so if Hillary was so great why is has she lost 10 straight primaries?
people are tired of the bs that went on in the 90's everyone seems to have forgotten with whitewater and the stupid blue dress from Monica.
Posted by: autoprt | February 23, 2008 3:05 PM
Today's Johm McCormick editorial in defense of Barack Obama is one of his better puff piece editorials.
That's journalistic balance, Swamp style: balancing out a badly written pro-Obama editorial with a better written pro-Obama editorial.
Posted by: Peter Zenger | February 23, 2008 3:26 PM
It reminds me of when I heard Ronald Reagan's stump speeches. I enjoyed them, but I couldn't stand the man.
Similiarly, many might enjoy Obama's speeches, but they can't stand the man.
Those who complain that Obama isn't going to solve the world's problems are actually correct. No president can.
In truth, the president has some influence, but the overall state of our existence varies from person to person. No one is going to make the world "wonderful" for everyone.
So even while I am rooting for Obama, I don't think he, Clinton or McCain will walk on water. But the difference between the three can be significant. Even GW had a great impact in the lives of tens of thousands of people.
Posted by: Resident Genius | February 23, 2008 3:57 PM
The people who need to be inspired are those who have the power to make changes such as Congress and foreign leaders.
Hillary Clinton has the experience and strength to lead this country, even to the point of making decisions which will not be popular and/or inspiring.
Posted by: Eve | February 23, 2008 4:04 PM
Clinton campaign appears one of trial and error alternating between confusion, anger and squabbles repeated with small breaks of apparent poise and reconciliation with reality.
With the kind of advantages enjoyed in name recognition along with a huge campaign war-chest in excess of 100 million, if they couldn''t run an effective campaign against an uderdog and burned the cash quickly, it kind of forebodes the things to time - i.e. bleak prospects in fiscal prudence and dministrative, organizational efficiency. So much for the experience!
Contrast this with Obama and the choice is no brainer...
Posted by: Judy | February 23, 2008 6:21 PM
I saw that rally and although you claim the people began to leave you forgot to mention that Obama told them he was done after 1 more question which triggered a few of the people to begin to pack up and leave to get an early start on foot traffic to their cars (there were thousands of people packed in together in that area)....So your article's intro was misleading...the video is online for others to see too that it wasn't that he was making them fall asleep it was because he told them he was DONE!
Posted by: Jonathan | February 23, 2008 6:32 PM
Obama is all hype.
No one says nothing better than he does.
Posted by: Talk Show Host | February 23, 2008 6:36 PM
This article did NOTHING to explain his 'details'--show us don't tell us that he's got substantive ideas. I want to be able to hear his energy policy, for instance.
Posted by: Golden Oldie | February 23, 2008 6:44 PM
The main reason Obama has won so many primaries recently is not because of his great plans or even his smooth rhetoric. He's winning for one main reason: He's not Hillary. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that more than half of his votes would have gone to anyone who is not Hillary. She's made too many enemies in the lib camps. Do you really think Kennedy is that impressed with Obama? Nah ... he's supporting him because of who Obama is not.
Posted by: Colby | February 23, 2008 7:03 PM
CALIFORNIAMARTY SAYS,
Those who Ignore the Hard Lessons of History Are Doomed to Repeat Them-We can run from Iraq but we Cannot Hide.
If I could speak to Barak Obama I would suggest that if he becomes POTUS that before he orders our abandonment of the fight against the terrorists who seek to capture Iraq for their launching pad to rain destruction on us that he read one book: William Manchester's THE LAST LION WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL; ALONE; 1932-1940. The book is now soft cover about 800 pages including cititations and notes: The Washington Post: "History in the grand manner...Vivid and Interesting...Here Manchester tells again the familiar but always instructive story of Churchill's unheeded fight to arouse the European democracies (and their even sleepier transatlantic ally) to the menace of Hitler." Only one or two commentors appear to have read the history that now is ignored by Obama and his disciples. We are in perilous times and isolationism and appeasing implacable monsters will not deter them it will instead fuel their hatred and contempt for us and invigorate their mission to destroy us.
Posted by: CALIFORNIAMARTY | February 23, 2008 7:47 PM
This article did NOTHING to explain his 'details'--show us don't tell us that he's got substantive ideas. I want to be able to hear his energy policy, for instance.
Posted by: Golden Oldie | February 23, 2008 6:44 PM
The above post shows just how eager some people are to be uninformed. There is no other time in history when a candidate's positions, views, interests, are so readily available as they are today. If any candidate simply talked about their issues the audience would be bored to death. All candidates have websites where anyone with a computer with internet access can look at and study and digest to their heart's content. So why would Golden Oldie waste time writing such a comment? I've attended four Obama rallies and seen more on TV, and I feel that he has given as precise a description of his proposals as possible without a long dragged out affair. What is interesting is how he interacts with his audiences to such an extent that he feeds off of the energy that they project. This does not seem to happen with the other 3 candidates.
Posted by: GW | February 23, 2008 8:10 PM
Golden Oldie and others:
You want details? Go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
There are hundreds of pages of details there, but you have to be willing to READ them. The media won't cover the details because they're sensible and nuanced, as opposed to some controversial sound-byte.
Before you accuse Sen. Obama of empty platitudes, do your homework. I have, and my conclusion is crystal clear.
Posted by: Trish G | February 23, 2008 8:13 PM
This article is Obamadable!
Posted by: David Welsh | February 23, 2008 8:13 PM
The contrast of the Clinton and Obama campaigns give us a preview of how they would manage the presidency. Clinton has mismanaged money and staff and has run a divisive campaign while Obama has remained steady, stable and unified. It's clear to me who is ready on day one and who is not.
Posted by: Jean | February 23, 2008 8:31 PM
Hooray for Trish G and Jean and Jonathan. There are TONS of easily-available sources on Obama's policy ideas, achievements, and biography. I'm sick of journalists who don't bother to do any research - even when it would be ridiculously easy - and then mindlessly repeat what one candidate says about another or what other journalists (who haven't done any research either) say.
Posted by: DoTheMath | February 23, 2008 9:10 PM
This man continues to talk in generalities. His campaign puts out material against Clinton distorting her words, but he continues to get a pass. The most recent is quoting from a student newspaper, and attributing it to Senator Clinton. There's no way to clear this up because it went out in print. Shame! I think its downright foolish to go back to '93.
Posted by: Vivi | February 23, 2008 9:16 PM
SWAMP is right
just vote OBAMA
i trust him
Posted by: Tony | February 23, 2008 9:26 PM
Damed if he does, damed if he doesn't. His talks to small audiences are both informatitve and balanced.
1. His speech on war in 2002 - shockingly prophetic
http://www.digg.com/politics/Full_text_of_Barack_Obama_s_2002_Speech_Against_the_Iraq_War
Once the war started, he did vote to support the troops but in no way is this a support for the war
2. De-escalation speech 2007
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/
3. ECONOMY speech to Wisconsin auto-workers
http://wclo.com/podcasts/wclo-news-features/2008/feb/13/obama-janesville/
4. Policy approaches to SF Chronicle
http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0
Posted by: Young Atheart | February 23, 2008 9:41 PM
I know this is hard for young folks from well off families to believe, but not everyone knows how to use a computer, or can afford to buy one. So for THOSE people, I'd like Senator Obama to actually TALK about his own plans.
These are his plans aren't they? Who better to hear them directly from?
Posted by: Baggem | February 23, 2008 9:48 PM
Obama has numerous identities. His true self is hidden from the public by piles of fake images. In the core, he is just a selfish pathetic opportunist who has the audacity to do anything for personal gain.
Posted by: hcgogogo | February 23, 2008 10:33 PM
Armchair Journalism at its best!
Obama's record is not that difficult to find:
In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits.
www.thomas.loc.gov
Some of the bills:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee),
** STOP FRAUD ACT (before subprime became an issue)
Posted by: tchanta | February 23, 2008 11:10 PM
The Tribune's cheerleading for Obama has us where we are today--with a candidate whose strings are being pulled by Axelrod. I don't trust Obama, I find him extremely condescending, and I wonder how long before people turn on his verbal idiosyncracies. If I hear him say "Understand" the way he does, like his listeners need to be taught by the great master, I will scream.
Thanks, Oprah! Thanks, Tribune! You have been "homers" for Obama and I am afraid we are stuck with him. But that won't last long since this is how the Republicans will get back in office. They will make hay with what they find, and it is coming.
Posted by: Ms Hill | February 23, 2008 11:13 PM
Obviously Clinton is frustrated with the Obama momentum, but the fact still remain that people are sick and tired of old politricks. I will advise her to accept defeat and embrace change. GO Obama
Posted by: Sunny | February 23, 2008 11:18 PM
Obama reminds me of the motivational speakers I've listened to or those MLM recuiter's. What's really giving me the creeps right now is how he's hypnotize the media. I've never ever seen the media fall in love and defend a politician before. I'd like to see the media attack him and see how handles it before he wins the nomination. It would be great to see what he's made of. You know talk is cheap. Show me Obama if you can handle being put through the ringer. If you can I'll believe you.
Posted by: Jorson | February 23, 2008 11:31 PM
Why tear the candidate down? If your candidate is the best then they should win on their positives not your interpretation of negatives of another candidate.
Obama for our LEADER!!
American People for CHANGE!!!
Posted by: S Morris | February 23, 2008 11:48 PM
If you want to complain that obama's speeches contain no substance, do some research. Don't just say it because thats the way his enemies and some of the media are trying to spin it. If you want to hear his policies, listen to his actualy speech. If you want to see them, go to his campaign website. Everything is there in detail.
Posted by: MM | February 24, 2008 1:54 AM
Michelle Obama's America -- And Mine
By Michelle Malkin
February 20, 2008
Like Michelle Obama, I am a "woman of color." Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.
Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.
At a speech in Milwaukee this week on behalf of her husband's Democratic presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Mrs. Obama's statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word "change." What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.
I'm just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We've grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been "hungry for change"? Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent "change" any more than Hillary invented "leadership" or John McCain invented "straight talk."
We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.
We've lived through two decades' worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about "change" and upheaval, both good and bad.
We were adults through several launches of the space shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we've witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned to change the world and succeeded. You want "change"? Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies that have flourished under the best economic system in the world.
If American ingenuity, a robust constitutional republic and the fall of communism don't do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?
How about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome home ceremony for the troops?
For me, there's the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.
Every naturalization ceremony I've attended, where hundreds of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia -- including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors -- my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches, and Salvation Army and Red Cross offices to volunteer.
Posted by: siu chui | February 24, 2008 2:18 AM
I think the "Words" issue is very important because Obama is running his campaign on his words, not on the issues.
Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod is the same one Deval used when he ran for Governor. So this isn't a case of two friends sharing some lines. It's a case of the campaign manager using the same manufactured speech for different clients.
If all Obama has are words, and the words aren't even his own, then what does he have?
And what does it say about our culture when we don't value hard work, ideas or even originality? We're getting to the point where we fall for anything that isn't real.
Posted by: siu chui | February 24, 2008 2:50 AM
Please don't let the Clintons back into the White House again. Hillary cannot deny that she is running as Hillary/Bill and for some the Clinton years appear reassuring compared to our present government. Something is amiss in our constitutional law that allows the Clintons to campaign for a third term. The office of President is a singular position and should not be under the influence of an ex-president who has world-wide influence with several countries. The Clinton Presidential Library and the Clinton Foundation both have received sizeable donations from foreign countries. The Clintons refuse to release documentation on the sources of all incoming funds, and the recipients of outgoing funds. This display of secrecy should demonstrate that “hidden influence” is more than just a subject for debate. One can “vow” to not be swayed by powerful generous donors, but promises can be the “frosting” on a cake. This should raise red flags, as there is far too much opportunity for power-wielding favoritism at the level of the Presidential Office. One would expect our President to make decisions based on what is right for our country, yet there are unfortunately many momentous poor decisions. The Clintons still wield enough “influence” to control their interviews, as some subjects appear to be off-limits or their answers evasive. It is troubling to see the impact of an old lingering but unrealistic nostalgia, which enables the Clintons to paint such a rosy picture of their Presidential years for some “loyal” voters. Hillary claims that as a spouse in the White House, those years can be added to her "experience", which is indeed controversial. Since she takes shared credit for the Clinton economy, she should accept, as her half, shared responsibilities in the Clinton failures. That booming economy slowly crumbled, so it was actually a “fairytale” economy. The undeniable slow, constant financial drain imposed by NAFTA, free trade with China, and other bad ideas broke the piggy banks of many on the low-income scale. The CEO’s of large corporations gleefully lined their pockets with gold. Corporate profits rose, greedily unstoppable, as it toppled the little people. The real “Clinton Chiller” however, is the failure to attach enough importance toward stopping Osama bin Laden, who had been high on the Big Bad Guys list of terrorists since 1993. Bill claimed, in a televised interview back in September 2006, that he had authorized a kill order on Osama bin Laden, however that was not true. (Hint: Don't ask Bill about it though, it's a touchy subject. He'll turn red in anger, wag a pointed finger at you and declare that it's a lie) I seem to remember from childhood a famous Uncle Sam poster, where he was pointing a finger and saying "I Want You", actually an enlistment poster for the U.S. Army. However, I am in no way comparing Bill with this patriotic poster. The CIA claims that Clinton finally issued an order in December 1999 and authorized use of lethal force “capture, but not kill” Osama bin Laden. While Clinton passed up many opportunities to stop Osama bin Laden, history cannot be rewritten. It is however, time that the Clintons quietly fade away into history and let the only qualified Presidential candidate that can give us a reason to believe that our country can once more become the United States of America instead of the Divided States of America. We cannot rewrite history, but we can learn much from the past, we can redirect our troubling downward course. We can “change” the future of this country, it is not an “empty promise”, nor is it “just words”. “Change” was the inspirational message of Barack Obama’s campaign from day one. Change we can believe is within reach, and I voted for him because I believe in him. I, for one, now have hopes that in the near future, with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, we can attain a brighter tomorrow. I
Posted by: brownize | February 24, 2008 5:49 AM
Having studied Obama more closely than I have most other public figures,I trust him. I know he will make mistakes and I might not always agree with him,but in the world of power and politics,he is in a category by himself. How can anyone rationalize the thinking that we would have the Clintons again?? Decades of Clintons and Bushes when they are all mediocre at best? It is insane.
Obama offers leadership and he offers the people a chance to really participate in moving our nation in the right direction. If he is elected, we will not all go back to our reality TV. We will have work to do. Listen to him. He is not saying I. He is saying WE. We have been without competent leadership for decades. Bush could not lead because he is mindless. Clinton could not lead because he put getting elected ahead of leading. McCain is old and out of touch with anything but war and ways of the past. Hillary Clinton has shown us she is inconsistent and incompetent in this campaign. The way it seems, we are fortunate we came out with at least one good choice - Barack Obama.
Posted by: JStewart | February 24, 2008 11:16 AM
It is absolutely incredible how the media and so many have been hypnotized by this candidate. The bar has been set so low for him that anybody that dares to question his patriotism, his record, his experience, his accomplishments or his business deals is deemed a racist or un-patriotic. JStewart writes above "having studied Obama....." I wonder how much who have studied him. I have been following him since I heard him at the DNC convention speech on 2004. I was moved and inspired. I followed his career at a distance ans saw him in the senate floor several times thereafter through CSPAN. What a dissapointment. He could never articulate his ideas clearly, could not think on his feet and usually had pretty flat responses when it came to policy issues and stands. I moved on and stopped watching. His record in the senate has been mediocre at best. He has been notoriously absent from delicate and controversial policy decisions. His " I want to change" Washington attitude is not reflected in any of his stances. In contrast to Obama I do not have to tell you how much Hillary Clinton has done in the senate for Upstate NY, and before that as first lady, and before that as Arkansas first lady, and before that as an activist and social servant and before that... Maybe I do.....
Let substance prevail.....
Posted by: glavela | February 25, 2008 11:41 PM
It takes more than a speech to lead a country. I do not see in depth to Obama. I take offense at his protrail of himself to JFK and LMK. The truth of the matter, they were vetted and tested - they had shown courage to take a political stand. They died in that qwest. Obama has shown nothing. From my research he is not well liked from people that worked with him. He knows nothing about the economy, knows less about international policy. From my view he has "french fry" politics and we Americans are pulling up to McDonalds for the quick bad hamburger.
Posted by: Pam | February 28, 2008 8:22 AM
Oh.......Hillary Clinton is so good she is a saint....bla....blah....blah! What has she done......tell me! Not sattisfied her husband....and for public sake and for future presidential run keep a FAKE marriage. What they have is so fake people cab no longer lie to themselves. MCcain.....geeze we need no more old traditionall fogies in the house all they care about is protecting the rich mans money!!!!! Who makes all that money for corporate America....hmmmmm maybe middle or low class, working for little to nothing. This whole country was built on reason and hope. This country was foyght over because we as a people were tired of being opressed from British Rule...and i am a white republican by the way. Your satus has nothing to do with how you vote.....believing in A MAN who believes in himself and a better future that includes our children and not just the wealthy families is a start!!!!
OBAMA 08
Posted by: Tim | February 28, 2008 6:07 PM