Obama on the Issues
Reporting on American politics tends to be driven by what is called “process stories” or “horse race coverage” — stories that focus on comparing poll numbers, chattering about things like “momentum”, and weighing the candidates’ style. Round-up coverage at Memeorandum has, unfortunately, skewed dramatically in that direction since the Iowa caucuses. What is needed is a focus on the important candidates’ positions on the issues. Today I focus on the new Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama.
Obama’s web site is unusual in its combination of broad and detailed coverage of specific issues. Where other candidates’ web sites can be legitimately criticized for their vagueness and use of empty platitudes in the place of specific plans, Obama provides a detailed set of points and plans. One of the strongest areas is Obama’s issue page on immigration, where he skillfully weaves a compromise policy through the ideological minefield, promising specific steps to improve border security, reduce the incoming flow of illegal immigrants, as well as to combine a temperate punishment with a reasonable path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already embedded in American society.
Obama’s position on Iraq does not, however, maintain such strengths. Apparently seeking to maximize his appeal to the portions of the Democratic base that are motived primarily by rage against the Bush administration, Obama features anti-Bush rhetoric and potentially risky promises for specific troop withdrawals detached from attention to many of the contingencies that might arise. His position on Iran similarly leaves many questions unanswered, such as what his administration would do in the event that diplomatic efforts failed to dissuade Iran from a pursuit of nuclear weapons. Would an Obama administration adopt a position of containment and deterrence? Or would it be willing to use military action to preclude Iran from becoming a full nuclear power? We don’t know even what direction Obama might lean in on this important question.
A similar gap exists in regards to trade. With ballooning trade deficits and, conversely, the importance of international trade in promoting international democratization and conflict avoidance, whether a candidate takes a protectionist or neoliberal stance is extremely important. I was unable, however, to find any such position on Obama’s otherwise very rich site.
Overall, Obama presents a good picture on the issues, quite different from and much more complex than the “too liberal” meme currently being promoted by the Hillary Clinton campaign as they seek to recover from the unexpected drubbing that Obama laid on them in Iowa. Certainly, Obama is within the conventional liberal Democratic mainstream on many issues, but his approach to issues seems to genuinely reflect the greater inclusiveness and willingness to compromise that he promises rhetorically.
On the issues, Obama is a strong candidate that deserves serious consideration beyond the style-obsessed “process stories” that the ride-along media favors.
(Admin note: This thread is for discussion of Barack Obama. Attempts to “hijack” the comments thread for spam or discussion of other candidates will be removed without notice.)
Such as "The vision of a new coalition to sweep a progressive agenda across this country" you mean?
Not a lot of content in that kind of promotional rhetoric. One can get concerned about the "sweep a progressive agenda" part or can choose instead to notice the call for a "new coalition". I choose the latter myself, especially since his agenda appears “progressive”, but quite moderately so.
Hmm. You only addressed two issue areas and seem to declare it a wash in terms of how detailed and how bipartisan he is. Yet when you look at the rest of his issue statements, particularly the domestic agenda, it does read like a typical liberal ‘womb to tomb’ plan, with little detail about how it will all be paid for except to say that he’d push for "PAYGO" and he’d rescind the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy".
I’d say that you’re right when you argue that he gets somewhat of an unfair rap for being too vague, but wrong to say he’s not really that liberal. On the other hand, it’d be interesting to compare his domestic agenda with Hillary’s to see if she’s accurate to try to portray herself as the less liberal of the two.
Also, the disconnect between the detail of his proposals on the website and the detail in his stump speeches is pretty pronounced- so obviously it’s the latter that earns him the criticism for being too vague. And it’s pretty obvious that he might WANT to be vague and just stick to ‘inspiration’ rather than have people think too much about what kind of change he’d actually bring.
John Kennedy brought a new hope of American fairness to the world will Barak Obama project the same aura?
I’ve been frustrated by Obama’s vagueness at times, but that is not a slam on Obama. I often would like to know more about Obama’s exact plans on an issue than is available, but I frequently run into that with the other candidates also. All candidates will leave some things vague for obvious political reasons.
In some cases it is simply not possible to say exactly what you will do. This includes dealing with Iraq and Iran. Conditions in both countries may be different by the time the next president takes office. It is also difficult to lay out a ten step plan for solving such problems because you have to start with step one and see what happens before deciding on a definite step two.
It does take a bit of digging to determine the specifics of Obama’s views–which is also true of all candidates as they will stick with generalities in their stump speeches and the so-called debates, and interviews rarely get very detailed. If you dig you can generally find out more detail.
Sometimes digging will give the specific answer. In other cases there might not be a specific answer but you can get a general idea of how the candidate approaches the issues.
In Obama’s case, one strong point is that he does often show evidence of considering other viewpoints. This is one of his strengths, and why many of the attacks on him failed. Many liberal blogs (excluding Liberal Values, of course) have attacked Obama for using "conservative frames." What this really means is that he is considering other views, making him more attractive to a large number of people.
Obama’s issues section on his web site is by far the least vague of any candidate I have looked at.
It’s easy to promise, it’s tough to deliver. I read through his issues list, and what I saw as a whole lot of expensive promises that he cannot possibly deliver on. The purse is simply not that deep, the amount of taxes to be wrung out by eating the rich insufficient. Detailed it is, but in a sober analysis it adds up to:
"…and a pony!"
THE LIES OF U.S. DEMOCRATSHypocritical & cowardly Democrats want it both ways – they supported the Iraq War Resolution, but also want to place the blame for going to war on President George W. Bush. President Bush’s only mistake was to trust incorrect intelligence reports that originally came from the Clinton administration: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."
— President Clinton (Feb. 17, 1998 Statement On Iraq – address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff).These intelligence reports were also believed by other high profile Democrats. For example:"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction."
— Senator Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts), Sept. 27, 2002. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
— Senator John F. Kerry (Massachusetts), Oct. 9, 2002. “He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members….Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
— Senator Hillary Clinton (New York), Oct 10, 2002 As you can see from the above, Democrats find it easy to cast blame, but have very short memories when it comes to the judgments of leaders in their own political party. The vast majority of US Democrats also believe you have "the right to kill" unborn Americans through abortions. Because that "Dark Party" continues to block a Human Life Amendment to the US constitution, almost 4,000 Americans are sentenced to a "death penalty" without a trial EVERY DAY! Barack Obama approves of this mass murder, and therefore is morally unfit to be President, or occupy any other political office. Hitler was also great speaker, but look at the damage that madman did to Germany and the world. You need more than a big ego to be qualified to be President, you need experience and moral credentials, and these are greatly lacking in this politically dangerous man. But then, many fools followed Hitler, and therefore many other fools who are indifferent to exterminating unwanted unborn human beings will follow the spiritually insane beliefs of Barack Obama. Vincent Bemowski – Webmaster/Editor: Catholic Messages USA
I’d rather change from the Bush/Clinton years.