All Hat, No Cattle

From Andrew Sullivan
A reader writes:

Enough of this rah rah Obama crap. Yes, he's a captivating speaker. He could potentially unite us, lead us, and revive our international reputation. We get it already. But of all the "pro-O" bloggers (and there are many), I was really hoping that you would be the one to really scrutinize his policy positions. What happens when when he turns to Plouffe on election night and says, like Redford in The Candidate, "What do we do now?" When are you going to stop cheerleading and start asking the tough questions? Get to it, man! The idol-worship is wearing thin!

I find this criticism bewildering. Obama has a host of policy positions, on taxes, healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan, immigration, climate change. There seems to be a meme that because someone is inspiring, there has to be no substance. But they are not mutually exclusive categories. In the Democratic race, the only real substantive difference is healthcare mandates. And compared with McCain, Obama is a wonk.

Here are three links which in go in detail into specific policy decisions
one , two, three

This next one regards specific policy he discussed on tuesday in wisconsin. Now, I know we are all not obsessed like I am with this process but with just a little work typing Obama and Policy in google I get the obama policy book. Each chapter is expanded upon further in his website.

Listen, I understand all your friends are getting on-board the Barack Express and you havent. It is annoying isnt it? All the Hope-Mongering. The mindless obama-bots and obamaniacs infiltrating your inner circles. Me, I am not going to jam him down your throat -- you are not my problem. He has proven that with exposure and time, he can consistently get the well educated, well paid voter, because no matter how annoying the barack-ophiles are or how unbeleivably appealing his speech is
you will eventually get to examine his voting record and history you will find the plaform easily, and consider it on its merits.

My problem is with the poor, uneducated who dont have the time or ability to actually read this stuff. All they know is the clinton brand name as something familiar and safe. These people are also respond most to phrases like "All Hat, No Cattle" and "Empty Suit." These are the voters he needs to reach -and some of them were reached in VA on Wednesday. So, it may be sad to write it, but the best way to combat whisper campaigns are not indepth policy speechs but more positive rhetoric, 30 second tv ads, and a branding of HOPE that include short populist quips.

St Marks & 3rd

Is the future of the east village the future of architecture?

That intersection is one of the worst -- It wont get better after this.

Defending Hillary (earlier than I expected)

This is a response post

I have read this post and I am having a hard time responding. A main reason is that deep down I have socialistic tendencies that will not gain me any points. So lets start out with this. I sympathize with your reservations about the Clinton dynasty. I can even understand why for reasons relating to values, authenticity, trust, connection you don’t like her. If someone is considering not voting for her despite their agreement on her positions, I understand that.

My main question is given that the basic democratic platform is formed around the notion of providing social safety nets for the lower quartile of Americans, greater economic opportunity for the middle 50% and paying for it, at least partially, by increasing the burden of the upper 25% (especially the top 10%), how would a democratic candidate running on a democratic platform earn your vote?

No matter how much pork you cut out of the budget or how many loopholes you close, no matter how much growth you create or how big a recession we go in – I can’t see how the democratic platform doesn’t address income/resource inequality.

My other question has to do with your change in perspective. Do you see your position today on these issues as fundamentally different than when you were phone banking for clinton/gore in 1992?

BTW: jacks loved the necklace

Another Reason to Love Cornell

Have You Voted Yet?

Si se Puede

The new hampshire speech this song is based on may not even be his top five.

thats old news

Twenty one democratic Senators and one hundred and twenty six democratic Congressmen voted against the 2002 Iraq AUMF. Why should I choose you for president after making most important foriegn policy blunder in my lifetime?





Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002
October 2, 2002



Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.