NewYorkNewYorkNewYork,

I have read your questions and they are certainly specific. One might almost say, too specific. I will explain why in a moment, but first let me explain that I am motivated to respond to you because I was appalled at the dismissive and unduly hostile response you got from artandsoul. I frankly don't understand where that came from, and I found them (there were several responses) very disrespectful,.

Now let me "declare" myself. I am not an "Obama supporter" in the sense of voting for him, but only because I am not a voter in the U.S. I do think he is the best candidate of the ones available. For me the main attraction was his political philosophy. You may find that too broad or vague. But that brings us to what I said before, that your questions are too specific. They are the kind of questions that no candidate can give "specific" answers to, simply because such answers are worth nothing. A president does not act alone, nor even act directly in the legislative sense. Thus, it makes no difference whether Obama has "specific plans" to do this or that, because it is not up to him. He has to persuade Congress to enact legislation that will move the country toward the desired goal. During that process of persuasion, many details will be hammered out, and some compromises will be made. It is therefore immaterial or even disingenuous for any presidential candidate to talk about what s/he will or will not do as president, because invariable what s/he actually does when in office will be different. (Remember "read my lips?")

A more fundamental reason why Obama cannot offer "specific" answers to your questions is that it violates the entire premise of his candidacy, the movement to change the way "governing" is practiced. Implicit in all your questions is the assumption that the solution to any and all problems or questions must be provided by the president, and the citizens of the country then accept them (or not, as the case may be). This is what is known as "top down" management of problem solving, and this is the approach that Sen. Clinton took. But, in business after business and country after country, it has been demonstrably shown that the only lasting solutions to any social problems are the ones that come from the "bottom up." This is the approach that Obama is proposing, and that has brought on board his many supporters. Obama's way is to say that the solutions to problems facing Americans must be found by Americans themselves, working together. This is what he means by saying "You are the change you have been waiting for," You may ask then, what is there for a president to do in such a case? The president in such a scenario acts as facilitator, to get all parties talking, to set the boundaries of the debate or discussion (so that only reasonable proposals will be discussed, and not extreme ones), to make sure everyone's needs and desires are addressed to the extent possible, to help all parties move toward a compromise that all can agree on, and, since such a process ensures that everyone has "bought into" the ultimate solution, see that it is implemented and enforced properly. With such an approach, Obama cannot give "specific" solutions now, because his whole premise is that the solution will be arrived at by direct participation by the citizenry. But please don't think that this facilitator's role is easy or trivial. This is what requires a strong leader, to keep the communication open and productive, and to provide the general guidelines of the solution all are working toward. It is, if you think about it, the same principle behind the wording of the constitution or Declaration of Independence. It is a declaration of principles which will guide all subsequent and consequent actions, and which are not to be violated. Because there was a constitutional principle that "all men created equal", that statement could be appealed to to bring equal rights for previously disenfranchised groups, even ones which were specifically excluded at the time of the drafting of the constitution. If, instead, the constitution had stated, "All white property holders are equal, and those who are not white, male, or owners of property cannot have the same rights" then none of the subsequent progress would have been possible, even though that would have been a much more "specific" description of how the new country should be governed.

Now of course Obama's policy positions are not as broad as constitutional principles, and he does give a lot of specifics to particular issues. Still, if you feel you are not getting specific answers, it may be because you are asking for something that is against his political philosophy -- you are asking him to give you an answer, when he wants to help you find an answer that works for you, even if it is different from what works for someone else.

I hope, if you reread his policy positions from that point of view, they may be more enlightening for you. If that is not the approach you want, however, and you prefer to continue the present "top down" approach to government, then he is probably not the candidate for you.

Let me add, by the way, that, even if he is elected to two full terms, and even if he is successful in implementing his approach to government, Obama cannot complete the change in the way thing are done within those eight years. His biggest will be to start the process, and, one hopes, to set it rolling far enough along the track that it cannot be easily reversed by his successors. He is, in other words, not the "savior", and he is fully aware of that fact himself.