Insubstantial Obama

[awaysidetraveler]

Why is the media portraying Obama as the Invisible Man?

It's interesting how willing people are to believe that Obama's an insubstantial candidate. Now don't get me wrong, Obama's speeches are a little light on substance. Obama's prosaic, sweeping oratories are designed to give his audiences hope in a better America, so they're full of stories. They're not dull policy meetings. Watching Obama is nothing like watching CSpan, but isn't criticizing Obama for not giving dull speeches a little unusual?

Look, if you want some dull reading material, check this out:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I promise, you'll be bored to tears in no time at all. All the specifics are detailed so completely that "latte liberals" like me find ourselves driven to suck down yet another "quad vente latte" just to stay awake. Heck, I had to drink coffee just to watch Obama detail the issues in those eighteen debates.

For a while, I wondered over this hollow media meme, which is by now embraced by McCain and company. Upon the first accusation that Obama was insubstantial, I checked the website and discovered this vast reference material staring me in the face. It didn't strike me as insubstantial, and it wasn't invisible.

So why is Obama's stance on the issues still invisible to the media?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Any well funded campaign pays a staff to write up pages of

website blidge. It's meaningless.

[awaysidetraveler]

3. Is HRC's website also full of "blidge"?

Or is that a substantial reference that anyone can use to check where she stands on the issues?

[Mz Pip]

4. So we might just as well

ignore Hillary's too.

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. It's up to you.

[Mz Pip]

11. Thanks

It's good to know I have a choice in the matter.

[islandmkl]

5. are any of the current BIG PARTY candidates not WELL-FUNDED?

[Recursion]

7. WTF do you want?

C: "He doesn't have any concrete issues!"

O: "Umm.. they're right here; they're largely the same as your candidate's, though arguably somewhat better on agriculture and rural development and arguably somewhat worse on health care."

C: "But any candidate can have a website with his or her platform and policy on it. What I want is ____"

What is the ___?

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Pointing to some web pages proves nothing about substance.

[Recursion]

12. The "web pages" are his official platform

Seriously, I'm asking a fair question, WTF do you want? You claim he has no substance, but you don't think his official platform matters. What do you want?

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. His official platform was authored by a bunch of pony salesmen.

He threw in everything but the kitchen sink. No wonder he sticks to platitudes in those revival speeches.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. If Clinton beats Obama on the issues...

how come the Clinton people have to make up nonsense about plagiarism and cults?

[Recursion]

27. So what, you agree he wants the right things, just for the wrong reasons?

*shrug*

Sounds like a cult or personality in reverse.

[awaysidetraveler]

14. What kind of reference material would prove substance?

[TwilightGardener]

17. oops, wrong spot--delete

[TwilightGardener]

20. Would you like a private meeting, where he can bring all his papers

and the two of you can crunch data and discuss all the various details in person? You're bizarrely fixated on your point, past all reason.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. I'll bet there is no back-up.

[awaysidetraveler]

26. Any chance we can get you to prove one of your assertions? n/t

[awaysidetraveler]

31. There's a strange blindness to your belief in Obama's lack of subsance.

Don't you need to back up that idea with some proof?

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. Obama's entire "hope & change" message is a synthetic marketing creation by

Axelrod & a small group of script writers. Why in god's name would one believe that anything else Obama has to offer would be any more authentic?

[awaysidetraveler]

35. So David Kusnet's speechwriting creations for Bill Clinton, are those also synthetic?

Or are they part of a political team's message?

I think the latter, because I believe that Bill Clinton worked as the head of a political organization.

That is to say, Clinton had speechwriters and he used their messages with his own.

[The_Casual_Observer]

37. The message is a synthetic formula. It has nothing to do with Clinton

It's a synthetic "movement" created to win a election.

[awaysidetraveler]

38. The message has simple catch phrases. The issues they stand for are substantial.

Where's the proof for your synthetic movement theory?

It doesn't exist. You have to fall back on the existence of a scriptwriter, even though Clinton also has one.
There's no substance to your argument at all, but that isn't what interests me.

What interests me is your blindness. What interests me is that a complete agenda and man can disappear before your eyes with one wave of the media's magic spin wand.

[The_Casual_Observer]

39. His message is synthetic, but his policies aren't.

Right.

[awaysidetraveler]

36. Let's ask an ex-Clinton speechwriter what he thinks about Obama's would-be plagarism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/exclinton-speechwriter-_n_87337.html

[Recursion]

2. That one gets me too

Even my Clinton-supporting friends, going to his site, say they "just don't see any issues". Which is nearly incomprehensible to me, since he lays out very specific policies (his agriculture policy is outstanding).

[awaysidetraveler]

9. I'm starting to see it as the invisible man phenomenon.

People sometimes deny the existence of problems they don't want to see.

Obama explores those problems as issues, and faces them dead on.

Maybe that's why. I don't know.

[awaysidetraveler]

10. I'm starting to see it as the invisible man phenomenon.

People sometimes deny the existence of problems they don't want to see.

Obama explores those problems as issues, and faces them dead on.

Maybe that's why. I don't know.

[TwilightGardener]

13. They're hitting him on his strength--inspiring people. Obviously, if people

like you a lot, find you believable, and are drawn to your campaign theme, that must be all you are--an empty "Idol" candidate, a showman. He's been plenty specific, there is a wealth of material from papers, speeches, legislation, his website, etc. that show his policies and agenda, but it's too much fun, too easy for the media to repeat and reinforce the conventional wisdom they have created.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. because Hillary is cynical and cannot inspire

thats why she has to smear and attack and try to drag him in the mud.

Its all she knows - attack fight divide.

And she ultimately divides us.

She/Billary doesn't want us to have hope and high expectations.

That would interfere with her lobbyists' goals.

[TwilightGardener]

25. She has to tear him down, bring him down to her level--

people were starting to think he was better than her. She can't make herself more palatable--too many people know her, and don't like her--she's got a fixed ceiling of support. He has the possibility of INCREASING his support, he doesn't really have a ceiling yet, because he's only becoming known, and he's proving very likable. Gotta tarnish him until he's just another calculating cynical pol like she is.

[awaysidetraveler]

21. I agree that they're hitting him on his strength. It's obvious he has a substantial agenda.

Actually, I hope they keep hitting him on his strength.

It reduces his opponent's credibility, when they lie about something so obvious.

Moreover, the lies aren't working, which shows the astonishing lack of public faith our public has in the media these days.

It indicates that some real change is occurring.

[jillan]

19. He should do a little of both.

Throw some facts in with the prose.

[awaysidetraveler]

23. What kind of facts are you looking for from Obama's speeches?

What exactly do you want to hear in the way of facts?

[TwilightGardener]

28. Link to some facts with the prose:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15492/

(thanks to Prosense)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4544594

[awaysidetraveler]

34. Excellent links, proving the substance issue in indisputable terms.

The insubstantial argument here appears to be the argument that Obama lacks substance.

[cottonseed]

24. Maybe because Hillary herself says there is no difference.

She's said time and again there's no substantial differences between either of their stand on the issues. She wanted to make the issue about experience. When we're talking about a couple years vs 6 years in the senate, in hindsight, that was probably pretty stupid.

[TwilightGardener]

29. He has eleven years of elected experience, to her 7. He wins on experience too.

[awaysidetraveler]

30. How can Obama be insubsantial, if there's no substantial difference between his and HRC's agenda?

There are, of course, a few major differences. The Iraq War policy for instance, where she plans to leave combat troops and bases until as late as 2013, and he plans to pull out in the next 16 months.

Still, the hypocricy is obvious.

There's a strange blindness to the denial of Obama's substance.

[cottonseed]

32. Agreed.

I agree with you that there are major differences and those differences favor Obama in my view. I wanted to throw the guy a bone that was a little easier to work with, so I went ahead and left that out.

Hypocrisy, it's what in large part drove the Repubs out in 2006. It's too bad it's found itself into this dem primary.