Why does it seem like whenever an Obama supporter is confronted with the "empty suit" critique, they respond with "look at his website." Well, silly me, for judging the guy on what he actually says... but I can only take so much recycled poetry.

I've been to two recent Hillary rallies - and she talks about generalities like any politician, then she breaks into specifics - student loan interest rates, amending DOMA, troop withdrawal from Iraq, healthcare coverage, financing so that we can discover the cause of the dramatic increases in autism in young boys, and so on - and her ideas for fixing them.

---

Go back and look at the debates. Hillary always goes one step further in specificity. Asked about what they'd do if they knew where Osama was in Pakistan, both Obama and Edwards spouted out the easy line of "I'd go get 'em" on my say so - only Hillary mentioned that Pakistan *must* be told beforehand lest they think an American special ops force is an *indian* one, which sets off a chain of events. I have an Indian friend who was astounded that she had the immediate wherewithall to think that things are not so black-and-white - millions of lives could be in danger by some cowboy response in a tense area with *two* nuclear powers! I could go on... but, man, Obama doesn't hold a candle to Hillary - even if he wins. Heck, Kerry won last time - and he was hardly the best candidate in that democratic nomination race.

Good plan-- don't go where you know the specifics are, that would keep you from whimpering about the lack of specifics.

In a large organization, leadership isn't necessarily about knowing all the particular details regarding all the particular topics. Leadership is more about motivating groups of people to accomplish more together than they could accomplish by working individually.

Detail people make great economists, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, etc but it's not the detail role most voters envision as necessary for the Presidency. Most voters tend to look for Leadership ability in the candidates rather than a detail oriented person.

Dude, obviously, I have been to his website - and heard his speeches. I even met him at a fundraiser when he was running for Senate.

My larger point (other than Hillary is gosh-golly-great) is that you cannot rebut charges of being an empty suit by saying "but go look at my website to see how substantive I can be!" I think even he has started to take more into account by incorporating more specific policy into his speeches, as he did recently in Ohio. And that's a good thing - good candidates and mature campaigns change and grow over time - it's why campaigns are supposed to be crucibles. If he takes Hillary's criticisms to heart now, and if he becomes the nominee, perhaps he'll be a better candidate, speaker and debater when he takes on McCain. Because, trust me, if they debate and McCain spanks him like a schoolboy on national television, people will hesitate to entrust leadership of the nation to an "empty suit."

This also ties into how governance is a wonky, hard business - and while his speeches indicate intelligence, I am sceptical of effectiveness. Hillary got a lot of flack for comparing LBJ to MLK, but she should have compared LBJ to JFK. LBJ was a great mover and effectuator of policy (even if you disagree with his aims, such as the Great Society, etc.). JFK, on the other hand, was a mediocre president at best - heck, his judicial appointments alone set back the Civil Rights movement in the south for years. Ironic how a southerner like LBJ was so much more important and helpful than a northerner like JFK... but I digress...

The reason you would look at his website is to get a more complete picture, it is really that simple.

As for his speeches, he is highly articulate and I find the claims his speeches lack substance to be dubious, at best. Yes, he knows how to stir a crowd, which is actually the point of a campaign rally --to rally support. Nonetheless, in both debates and speeches, he has been very specific.

Here are some examples:

On Iraq

On Health Care

On Defense

On the Environment

Frankly, I believe that those that make the claim that Obama doesn't talk in specifics are actually not listening.

CommonSense,

A good post, but off point... unless you're implying that Obama will somehow motivate the federal bureaucracy to work better or motivate Congress to work better through speeches as opposed to hard-nosed, detailed bargaining (I'd like to see that trick)... his motivation of the people is beside the point.

I can only think of two situations where "galvanizing" the people at large is important in a leader... times of total war/disaster or economic crisis. London undergoing the Blitz... yes, it helps to have a President who can inspire people to persevere and not surrender. The Depression and WWII... yes, bless FDR! Now? We are in neither (knock on wood). And electing a President because we might fall into economic collapse or total war is not my preference.

You can have a hands-off leader, sure... but he, and the country, will be at the mercy of his advisors. Obama seems to have reasonably good judgment, so I'm not frightened at that possibility. But I agree with Wolcott, perhaps because I'm an atheist, I do not look to politics or Presidents for self-ceritification... I just want hard-nosed bargaining, compromise, and results... I don't need a Preacher/Hoper-in-Chief. I'm optimistic by nature anyway! ;0)

So I take it you're too comfortable in the little fiction the Clinton campaign has spun to actually look at the articles from the Washington Post and New York Times chronicling his actual achievements? This is your argument, I'm calling you on it, and you respond in the Fox Newsian fashion of prefering your own set of "facts."

But okay. Let's judge this on speeches and debates. If Hillary is so stupefyingly brilliant that Barack Obama can only be humbled in her presence, why has he so decisively kicked her ass in the last ten primaries? "Obama doesn't hold a candle to Hillary-even if he wins" makes as much sense as Henry Clay saying he'd rather be right than president. He said this, of course, after he'd lost four times.

Spruce,

I've definitely been following things very closely. And the clips you cite to (as a supporter?) are not even all that flattering to Obama.

Case in point... your healthcare link: (I paraphrase below)

HIllary: Your healthcare plan doesn't have mandates like mine. Why not?

Obama: I don't think mandates are helpful or necessary.

Hillary: And yet you *do* have mandates in your plan for *children*. Why?

Obama: Because I want all children to be covered, duh....

Hillary: Aha! When you want *every child* covered, you include *mandates*. That is why, in my plan, because I want *every person* covered, I include mandates for everyone.

Voila, clip of Obama being spanked - and on probably the first or second most important national issue this election. I saw this debate and I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Unfortunately, it's a blink-and-you-miss-it moment of intellectual smack-down, and the press, god love 'em, didn't make the most of it... typical Obama favoritism, alas...

Oeno,

What are you talking about? I never mentioned Obama's accomplishments in this post at all. Heck, it would behoove him to trumpet his own "accomplishments" a bit more on the campaign.

And Hillary is the far better candidate. You say that because Obama is winning, he's the better person to be President. By that questionable logic then, we would never ever have a bad President, because... well, they *all* won, didn't they? We certainly wouldn't have had *two* terms of Bush, now would we?

The best person does not always, or even usually win. But, hey, we live in a democracy... and you take the bitter with the sweet. It's like Churchill said: "Democracy's the worst form of government... except for all the rest."

"I can only think of two situations where "galvanizing" the people at large is important in a leader... times of total war/disaster or economic crisis."

I would contend that we are already very close to qualifying for both of your situations especially in terms of an Economic crisis. I sure don't ever remember going through a "housing and credit crunch", deficits that are mind boggling and a falling dollar as well as a time where we handed out $150 billion in stimulus checks.

The Iraq War maybe isn't in full crisis mode however I don't remember any other trillion dollar War in our Country's History where there is no economic gain when and if it ends. I see it as what one poster referred to as "pissing away a trillion dollars" in the sand in Iraq.

And as all too evident by the seemingly never-ending Republican Administration, many factors can change quickly during an Administration where our country's Leadership could be very important to our Country.

Hi, Common

I appreciate your view... but you're comparing The Iraw War (Part Deux) with WWI & II? And the "housing and credit crisis" to the Great Depression?

Perhaps I should elaborate on "galvanization." In those hard times, there were specific things a President could inspire people to do or not do.

In war: Inspire people to *fight*, literally fight and die, for one's country and not pressure the gov't to surrender. Iraq... a war in which only a small fraction of the populace is involved, frankly.

Great Depression: besides trying to get people to not *despair* (I wonder how much true *despair* is going on right now), FDR needed to reassure people in the benefits and wisdom of capitalism. If the economic misery had continued, we might very well have had a socialist or communist revolution like half the world did. I honestly don't think there are many people who fear for our economy to the extent that we'd overthrow the government in favor of communism. All we'll do is quibble about the edges of free trade and such.

The far better candidate(s) were Richardson and Biden, but they weren't as sexy as Obama and Clinton. They were the most qualified to be president, as McCain was on the Republican side.

It will be interesting to see how Clinton changes her angle if she gets the nomination, because she certainly can't run as the "experience" candidate against him.

I actually liked Richardson a lot, too. Biden never did anything for me on matters other than foreign policy... and not having a big domestic angle probably hindered him.

And, sure, Hillary could run on experience against McCain. Experience is about more than who's older than who. McCain certainly has his military experience and POW experience; however, even that has his limits - by all accounts, McCain was judged by his superiors as reckless, argumentative and temperamental - probably very different from his father. Even McCain said in an interview that he used to be filled with such inexplicable rage that he'd start bar brawls just because. And he still has his temper! That, combined with the possibility of senility, is frightening.

Hillary wasn't in the military, but, in a time when people are more concerned about the economy, she can talk about her experience being a working mother. I remind you that for most of their marriage, Hillary was the breadwinner in the family, an appointee in the Carter Administration for federal legal nonprofit work, etc. People often let her work as First Lady (where even her failures in health reform still produced positive change such as SCHIP that benefits millions of children now) eclipse a career of wonderful accomplishment. Frankly, with a half-way decent publicity department, she could run circles on McCain on the economy (who admitted that the economy is his weak point) and family values (she stuck by her man, raised a great, smart kid, and has had a stellar career... eat your hearts out!). McCain would be left hoping for a terrorist attack... and that possibility would throw *any* race into doubt, most likely benefiting the republicans, as they tend to do at such times... Daddy Party and all that...

If Hillary were running for Domestic Policy Advisor, I might vote for her. She isn't. Obama will make a much better President.

My main focus is to nominate a candidate who can win. The idea of another old white man who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and who is a well-known war-monger whose best "new" idea on the economy is to promise "no new taxes" is a terrifying one. Hillary, fairly or not, is widely hated. I have talked to people who will vote for Barak, but never for Hillary; I have talked to no one who would vote for Hillary, but never Barak. While I realize this is merely anecdotal, it does give me pause. I voted for Barak in the Primary for this reason and also because of Hillary's yes vote for Bush's immoral war.