Obama's biggest criticism

[Scriptor Ignotus]

on DU seems to be his "style over substance" or that there's no "there" there. I am a little incredulous at these charges.

Do you think this is by accident? Do you think Obama knows nothing about policy matters? During debates he can speak confidently and effectively on any foreign or domestic policy. I have rarely seen him stumped or say something inaccurate (although he has fudged facts a few times. I can let a small handful go by before I become concerned). If you watch him in debates, town hall q&a's, or in some speeches, he demonstrates a true command of the issues.

So why the criticism on "style over substance"? Well, in most of his speeches, he doesn't go on and on about policy details. This is deliberate. It is an effective rhetoric style that has clearly worked for his message and campaign. Now, the blogosphere and the members of political forums such as this one may feel that his speeches are a little, let's just say, "thin". Look back on his speeches and try and view them as part of a greater strategy to connect to audiences and push forward an optimistic message (which I'm sure focus groups have shown tests well) and less a demonstration of a lack of knowledge on key issues.

He is being deliberate. He is being effective. And the results from Iowa prove that it works.

[SCDem]

1. Yes and people are actually listening to the speeches

Rather than tuning out - and repeatedly in speeches he calls on us to start working for change as well - that we can do it together.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

6. good point

you have to get people to listen to your speech first and pay attention the whole time. I don't think all the candidates can do that with the general public.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Obama is not a wonk in speeches--he knows how to use language better than that.

He doesn't go all "closing argument" like Edwards does, and he doesn't do the "laundry list" of Dem platform points (health care! Education! Jobs! Gobal warming!) that Hillary does. Obama is a big-picture guy, and that's what inspires people--a sweeping vision for the country, not a checked-off list of what you can do for me personally. That's something that Republicans have always been able to do well (especially Reagan), and Obama has mastered it--focusing on the entire nation's potential greatness, not on the usual "gimme gimme gimme" pander list.

[mac2]

3. Not for me

I voted him for him once and that turned out bad. He voted for the Patriot Act II which negates our Constitutional rights. He supported the war funding. He voted for Bush agency thugs (not all but most). He has not insisted we get our Constitution back.

The American people in election 2004 demanded National Health coverage but he ignores them for insurance companies.

He was silent during Katrina while Americans lay floating dead in the flood waters. Katrina was not properly investigated even after Democrats had power to do so. He's no Martin Luther King.

He gave his fear speech about "terrorists" on CSPAN when he knows more of it is lies since he was given an important seat on the Intelligence Committee (as soon as he arrived in DC). He is a media created hero. His speeches meaningless to me after his performance over the last few years.

Ask him when he will restore our Constitution and rights when he is elected President? Dodd says he'll do it right away. Right now we have a Police State thanks to him and other Democrats who sided with Republicans against us.

[chascarrillo]

10. Obama was not silent during Katrina

Please retract that statement. Thanks.

[jakem]

14. RE: Katrina

five page plan, silent?



http://www.moronosphere.com/rayinneworleans/KatrinaFactSheetFinal.pdf

[elixir]

16. A plan, yes, but what actions did he take during the crisis?

[jakem]

17. well, there are plenty of items on google should you care to look-

im pretty sure he was not in charge of the country at the time...

[elixir]

20. But he was a senator until 2004...I'll google this

[elixir]

21. I googled Lugar-Obama legislation S.1949 and was unable to determine if it was adopted and enacte

does anyone know if what happened to this?

[lostnotforgotten]

4. I Don't Need Optimism I Need Specifics And Fight!

I know who the enemy is - big money and Republicans!

Speaking in platitudes does nothing for me!

[emilyg]

11. Well put.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

13. for you, perhaps

and I know you're not alone in that, but 95% of the American public don't want specifics. They might say they do, but as soon as you begin talking policy they change the channel.

As for the "fight" well, that's another thing. I know there are neo-con Republicans and I know there are regular Republicans. I think Obama is willing to work with regular Republicans. As for the neo-cons, I think he is going to marginalize them. The neo-cons will not have much clout in any Democratic candidate's administration, so I'm not sure how Edwards or anyone else would "fight" against them.

[Dawgs]

18. So who do you support, Kucinich.

Because Edwards and Hillary are bit as guilty as supporting the Republicans as Obama.

[stillcool]

5. I don't get the whole..

'rhetoric' thing...but then many 'opinions' seem to zero in on a multi-purpose phrase that defines their view so they don't have to express individual thought. I believe that all of our great "democratic" leaders had something in common...and that was they inspired hope..you know...great rhetoric...
like this from Martin Luther King...


"Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." from his out of Vietnam speech.

Or this from JFK..."Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

[Skinner]

7. Sad truth: Our political culture values style over substance.

Having the best 12-point plan is not a recipe for victory. Just ask Al Gore or John Kerry.

It's well past time that Democrats learned image matters.

Barack Obama is brilliant, as are Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. But most voters don't want to be reminded that their president is smarter than they are. Obama is right to try a different approach.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

12. thanks Skinner

sad but true. I say don't hate the player, hate the game.

[rucky]

8. Yep. If he started going wonkish, the people he's trying to reach will tune out. n/t

[ruggerson]

9. That's not my biggest criticism of him

And I think that it's one game he's playing very intelligently. If he gets caught up in policy wonkishness, it makes it easy for the Republicans to stick the "liberal" label on him, which they will desperately try to do.

My biggest criticism is his exploitation of bigotry. He needs to address it and put it behind him.

[magatte]

15. What bigotry?

Is it, again, an attempt to paint him as a homophobe? Is it?

Directly for the horses mouth:

OBAMA on gay rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQLwe-MmxY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQLwe-MmxY

And his voting record backs it up.

So you are not helping the cause by ivoquing bigotry.

[dailykoff]

19. I think the ABC debate was supposed to be an Obama ambush

and Hill triumph, with all that canned al qaeda baloney like the dirty bomb "report" at the start (note that Obama was the first speaker, though Edwards was the first in the line, and Hill the 4th).

But it didn't quite work out that way did it? Unfortunately for Hill's neocon backers, there is indeed a there there.