Its interesting to me that after the last two elections, the conventional wisdom among Dems was that they needed not just a candidate who had a list of policy proposals, but also an over-arching philosophy that explained the candidate's approach. The whole "vision" thing.

After all, the details of a plan can get changed by Congress, and there are no plans for unforeseen changes in the political landscape. As such, insight into how a candidate thinks and approaches issues and debate is just as important as the details of the policy (s)he is advocating in said debate.

And the Dems get a candidate who does just that: articulates quite clearly an over-arching philosophical approach to politics, frames issues in novel ways that suggest brokering compromise with the other side might not be that far away, and offers policy proposals (see: his health care plan, his foreign policy article, etc).

And what do the pundits do? Trash him for not using every public speaking event as an opportunity to deliver a laundry-list of wonky policy initiatives.

Talk about a self-destructive inability to change the way you think about politics.

I was going to write something, but it appears Michael beat me to it.

Well said.

I agree with Michael too.

I don’t care about a 58 point plan for every issue. Those plans always get changed.

What I want from a candidate is a broad policy perspective with clear GOALS. That’s a President’s primary responsibility—to set the goals of a nation.

When JFK said let’s land a man on the moon, he didn’t say how, he just set the goal and made sure the necessary resources and national commitment were in place.

Obama consistently sets clear goals, in terms both specific enough and broad enough to make actual accomplishment possible.

The “vision thing” does matter and people do respond to it.

-I should note first of all that I like Barack Obama a lot, and I see lots of good reasons to vote for him

But, I gotta respond to this:

What I want from a candidate is a broad policy perspective with clear GOALS.

Me too. John Edwards, for instance, has articulated the goal of passing legislation to guarantee access to family planning and abortion for poor women. Barack Obama has not. Obama said a bunch of stuff about vision, but he did not make clear a commitment to ensure that poor women can get equal access to family planning and abortion.

Those are different articulated goals.

And I have trouble seeing how John Edwards is being painted as the candidate without vision. He has the big narrative, about the moral imperative that America work to end poverty. I actually think his vision should play about as well as Obama's, and Edwards vision includes the articulation of goals that are simply better than the goals Obama articulated.

DivGuy,

I did not intend to imply that Obama is the only one who talks about goals or has set goals. But I do think that pundits and bloggers are too apt to criticize his not having plans that drill down to point 589, sub-section 9, because in the end I think such detailed plans are irrelevant. With the exception of a few policy wonks, I would argue that few people vote on anything but the general goals and vision.

I think people who support Edwards spend so much time talking about his highly detailed plans as a way to distinguish him from Clinton and Obama, as well as the rest, and as a result the proverbial forest (his vision) often gets lost by looking so intently on each tree. I suspect in part the Poverty Tour is meant to highlight his broader vision, and will be more impactful then iteration number 58 of detailed policy plan number 27.

At any rate, if the AP reported today that GOP voters prefer “none-of-the-above”, democratic voters should be pleased to have a real, honest and more than acceptable range of choices, with each candidate offering something a little different from the others.

lucy -

first, I agree with you on the two broader issues you raise - that voters respond to "vision", and that the choice among the Dem frontrunners is a matter of choosing the best of a very good bunch.

second, I don't think that your "point 589, subsection 9" criticism applies here at all. Elizabeth Edwards explained that John Edwards will make sure that poor women have equal access to family planning and abortion. Obama didn't. That's not a minor technical question, it goes directly to what he believes and what he will do with regard to reproductive health and economic equality.

I haven't picked my favorite Democratic candidate yet, but the argument in the first paragraph is exactly what I want to hear. I support reproductive rights, but it's far from the most important issue on my agenda. I don't think it's worth it to get boxed in by a specific commitment to funding abortions for poor women, something the right wing can use to demonize the Democrats. And frankly I'm glad to hear Obama talk about (real) family values, because that's where my sympathies lie.

Don't get me wrong: federal funding for abortion (and all other health care) would be a good thing. But, I guess it's not important enough to me to risk the entire election for it.

This blind adulation for Obama is tiresome. He's running as a messiah, too good and spiritual to get caught up in the petty details that everyone seems to want him to state his views on and how he would act in the future with respect to. "Argue big" really is "argue vague" and pretend to care while never promising the rubes anything. You can just as easily take what Obama has said as a Christian right "family values" line and argue that families that don't bring up their girls properly shouldn't be supported in that poor behavior.

We don't need another "thousand points of light" candidate. We don't need another "compassionate" guy. We need specifics, not trust and not inspiration from someone who merely raises his hands, looks skyward and talks "big" with little history of doing "big." We've already got a president that we were told we could relate to, claiming to be doing God's work. Look what a great contribution that's been to the world today.

Stop making excuses for and glorifying Obama's repeated dodges on issue specifics. They're dodges, not inspiration.

Er...Amos, that's pretty much just wrong. Obama uses public speaking events (for the most part) to outline his broad approach to politics. And that IS important. However, he has NOT been shy about putting out white papers or giving detailed policy speeches. However, he hasn't yet put out an entire platform, no...though he has laid out an entire foreign policy platform and an entire health care platform, which are issues #1 and #2 in this election, and promised a full education platform and full energy platform in the coming weeks. The guy has been running for only 6 months now, and people are upset that he's "only" tackled only the 2 biggest issues of the campaign while shattering fundraising records and building his image up enough so that the Repubs won't be able to tear it down.

I mean, settle down folks. The first primary is still 6 months away.

DivGuy--

I agree that Edwards, like Obama, has been able to present both an over-arching vision and policies that fit that vision. I think his problem comes the 3rd aspect of a campaign: you can't just craft a narrative about the problems and solutions for the nation...you also have to convince voters that YOU in particular are in the person to implement those solutions. And I think that's where Edwards has faltered. While Hillary has weathered almost 2 decades of Repub slime and Obama has managed to shrug off Madrassa stories, "Hussein" stories, "he's a hypocrite--look at Rezko!" stories, "he smokes!" stories, etc etc...Edwards has not been able to protect his image from the right wing smear machine, unfortunately. I was a supporter in the 2003 primaries and it saddens me to see the state of his campaign (I'm not nearly as optimistic about his chances as most), but I think he just hasn't been up to facing the right-wing slime.

And lastly, thanks for the kind words Mike P and lucy!

half of all Latina and black girls become mothers before reaching their twenties.

Good Lord. Is this actually true? Not that I'm calling him a liar, but it seems like a huge figure.

"Barack Obama has not. Obama said a bunch of stuff about vision, but he did not make clear a commitment to ensure that poor women can get equal access to family planning and abortion."

I like policy specifics as well, but this issue in particular neends a much broader context. The prevalent reproductive choice "it's my right to do whatever I want"-- whether it's fuck indiscrimately (because I want to) or have an abortion (because I want to) have a very, very limited appeal outside a very, very narrow constituency. Disgust with this non-argument extends even to people who *support* reproductive choice.

A lot of women end up pregnant (750,000 teens per year?) because they have *no control* over their lives.

And it's not because middle class church going mommy and daddy are lecturing them about chastity. Or that they couldn't get contraception at the clinic. (Really? It's *that* hard?)

"You can just as easily take what Obama has said as a Christian right "family values" line and argue that families that don't bring up their girls properly shouldn't be supported in that poor behavior."

Bullshit!-- a lot of women have no control over their lives.

You people will do anything not to have to talk about that.

I support reproductive rights, but it's far from the most important issue on my agenda. I don't think it's worth it to get boxed in by a specific commitment to funding abortions for poor women, something the right wing can use to demonize the Democrats. And frankly I'm glad to hear Obama talk about family values, because that's where my sympathies lie.

supply vast kinds of styles handmade jewelry

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

I can't write scripts, would prefer more automated methods, lol.. Thank you for the information

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

gj http://www.fantastic-replica.net