as a state senator just does not impress me.  His "total elected office" consists of two years as a US Senator and 6 or 8 as a Illinois legislator in Springfield.  

There are a lot of legislators in Illinois, some who were in Springfield for 20 years.  I don't think they should be President either.

With Obama, I ask whether there is anything other than grand phrases and naked ambition.

Why is he running?  For what purpose, what change, what policy?  What are his issues?

Collaborate with Republicans?  New politics?

Then I read something like this in a different diary today:

A recent report in the Hill that Obama's campaign is running back channel funding from lobbyist's wives at the same time as he's publicly refusing funds from K Street.

"In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.

Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

"I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.""

That is the oldest form of politics I know.

If you want to get rid of cynicism, try waging a war on:

poverty
income inequality
corprorate crime
"Free" Trade
the DC lobbyist-politician axis

In other words, vote for John Edwards.

Obama seems to think he can get rid of cyncism but talking about how bad cyncism is, but cynicism is merely a symptom, not the disease. It's a symptom of a government that's owned and operated by an elite few.

I keep trying to find out what the Obama campaign is all about--it's hard to tell--but people are talking a lot about civic renewal and consensus and common interests. This might or might not reflect a lack of substance, but it certainly shows a lack of understanding of the stuggle that real change requires and a lack of stomach for that struggle. Tackling the largest, most intractable problems isn't a matter of appealing to common interests; on the contrary, they're the largest, most intractable problems precisely because there are two sides (at least) with conflicting interests. Obama's talk of civility and unity might win him praise from David Brooks and Matthew Dowd, but it won't force conservative Republicans and the corporate interests they serve to surrender. The important presidents, the transformational ones, like FDR, LBJ, and Reagan were polarizing.

What I don't know is whether Obama believes his own rhetoric--his own Delay-like K Street project suggests he doesn't--or whether it's a political message designed to appeal to the center in the General Election, a liberal's version of compassionate conservatism. Why are Dems eager to see plans from Obama? In part because there's a real question as to what kind of Democratic he is. For example:

- What's a higher priority for Obama: health care reform or balanced budgets?

- Does he join Edwards in rejecting the Washington consensus on "Free" Trade or does he side with Rubin's Hamilton Group, whose launch he headlined?

In any case, I'm wary of any Democratic who feels the need to hide his progressive message beneath such moderate, mushy rhetoric. I think most progressives are, and I'm not surprised he's getting a cool reception from activists--the people who have the stomach for the political battle:

"Rick Gale, the president of the firefighters' Wisconsin affiliate, was shaking his head after Obama's reform-heavy message to the union convention. "In my view, that's really not a message for our guys," Gale said. "They're really not afraid of politics."

When you talk about Obama's health care bill in IL, are you talking about AllKids? Or is it another bill?

"Do you really think that any specific plan that any candidate puts forth now is likely to be even remotely similar to what they end up passing?"

Yes. Bush's tax cut plan ended up being pretty similar to what he wanted.

It's important for to produce specifics so you know where they stand on the best way to accomplish policy objectives. Even the bill that we end up with is not what was originally proposed, it still gives the framework and a starting point for negotiations.

Edwards is drawing a line in the sand with his UHC proposal by saying, "everybody is involved and the government WILL have a large role to play". Obama has not gone that far yet because he hasn't gotten beyond "everybody is in".

Thanks for the response.

On the plan thing, both adam and okmichan's response both raise points I was going to make. To put it in my own words, the main reason I am interested in plans is that they show what kind of approach the candidate believes in for solving problems. This is necessary because, especially in a Democratic primary, the candidates are likely to agree on the problems

For an example, let's say two Democrats both say, "If I'm elected president, I'll eliminate unemployment in this country! Every American who wants a job will be able to get one!" Sounds nice. But how do these two candidates plan to reach that goal? Candidate A calls for a WPA-style program to create public sector jobs for the unemployed. Candidate B proposes tax credits for job creation. The plans show a difference in the candidates philosophies that isn't apparent from the big goal.

I certainly don't think any president's plan will pass exactly 100% the way it was proposed, but I don't think that makes campaign plans any less important. They let suppporters know what the candidate beleives in and how they think. They let you know what to expect and believe in. If you vote for Candidate A in my hypothetical, and all he ends up passing are tax credits for job creation, you'd have a right to be disappointed. If you vote for Candidate B, and he ends up creating a WPA-style program, you'd have a right to be confused.

Of course, it could be that plans don't matter, all that matters is achieving the goals that everyone agrees on...but I think that once you get into the details everyone doesn't agree and that's where the plans come in. (For example, almost everyone agrees "American studens should have a first class education". Try to get everyone to agree on what this mean.)

Hope that made sense.

As for experience, there's no minimum amount of governmental experience (or another kind of experience) that I think is essential; but I really don't like Obama's glib dismissal of only having two years of experiecne in national office ("I may have only been in D.C. for two years, but that's enough time to know that it's broken!"). I think his background in community organizing, as well as his childhood time in Indonesia, are both very impressive, important, and yes, relevant types of experience. But I also think it's impressive that Chris Dodd was in the Peace Corps. A candidate's experience out of office is certainly worth considering, but it doesn't make up for a lack of governmental experience (or a really glib dismissal of that lack of governmental experience.)

you are a joke yourself if you think that being against cynicism(check your spelling too) means becoming a punching bag.

a politics of hope means a politics that believes that change is possible against the odds.

for instance, unlike AIPAC obama believes that a solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict requires the hopefulness TOO beyond millitary solutions. Who would have thought that after the inhumanity of Apartheid(not that i'm comparing south africa and israel), Nelson Mandela would have chosen peace and reconciliation over war.(think if mandela was like robert mugabe, he would've asked all white south africans to leave south africa). if we had had a hopeful president in 2002 we would have recognised the wisdom of an international coalition to contain terrorist states and iraq would never have happened and the taliban would've become bankrupt by now.

A politics of hope is a politics of "will try, can do, will do". so grow up, my friend.

Yes Obama grants himself full immunity from all the nasty behavior exhibited by his staff members and biggest supporters.  

Trust Obama at your own peril.  

Kerry didn't have a health care plan until 2004 I think.

There was no policy wonkery really last time. Just "electability" and who was the best paper candidate that could beat Bush.

It's kind of sad, but I think we probably just had our last New England Democratic nominee for a long long long time.

Well, I don't think policy wonking is the key to winning elections (or losing them, for that matter.) For me, personally, it is a way to determine which candidate to support in a field where everyone agrees on the same principles (i.e. we need universal health care) and they all have certain flaws (I personally see the experience isssue as just a knock on Obama; Edwards only had one term in the Senate, Hillary's just starting her second term. While Dodd can't be knocked with the experience thing, there's the whole "does he really have a shot to win" thing; and so one for the others.)

I may well end up supporting Edwards. If the election were held today, I probably would. But I also have questions about him (is one term in the Senate really enough experience? Are the differences between his current campaign and his 2004 campaign primarily ones of style or ones of substance...or does he think there is no differnce at all? among others.)

While there's a part of me that would really like to be supporting someone now; right now there is no one out there where I feel, like I did about Dean and Feingold, that "this person will be a GREAT president". They'd all probably be okay/good presidents, but I can't really see why one would be better than another, so I want to give them all a chance. That's why I'd like to see more candidates' plans, as they'd give me another basis of distinguishing the candidates.

Anyhow, here's how I'm currently feeling about the candidates: 1.Edwards, 2. Richardson, 3. Obama. I'd seriously consider Gore and/or Clark if they get in the race.  

Thanks for your response here, your previous response, and for recommending the diary.

Your response makes me realize that most of the other response have also focused too much on the plan/experience question, that I feel some of my other questions got lost.

How is the Obama campaign different from other campaigns? Why should I (or anyone) support Obama now? (I know, and appreciate, that you already responded to this, I'd like to hear from others)

You say Obama is "the anti-do things as they have always be done guy", but I guess I'm wondering what that means, and who is the "pro-do things as they have always been done guy"? How does being "the anti-do things as they have always been done guy" make Obama special and worth supporting now?

That's a good response. I totally agree that for Obama, if he wants to win, he needs to tackle these things head on. The questions on experience are going to keep coming up and for his campaign's sake he needs to not just dismiss them as baseless attacks.

Des Moines, would e-mail sometime at archcityonecorps? The e-mail address is a yahoo one.

Thanks for the response; I always love when I post here and people have these kinds of stories about Senator Simon. It's why I keep the username despite the fact that it sometimes makes people think I'm named Paul, or that I'm a big fan of the "and Garfunkel" guy. (He's good, but no Bob Dylan or Warren Zevon.)

That caucus story does make me a little sad though, considering that it was so close on the Dem side, and that was definitely Senator Simon's big chance in that election.

"He is trying to get more people involved in trying to make the country better and put a dent in the toxic governing environment between Republicans and Democrats."

Who is responsible for that toxic governing environment? Who was charge from 2000-2006?

"Do you want to elect a policy wonk or a leader who in many, many ways is the personification of the ideals of America?"

Actually, I think Obama is a policy wonk. Look at all the (albeit modest) detailed policies and laws he's sponsored while a legislator or senator. But he's also being purposefully cautious right now and not being specific about things. So actually, I'd like a leader who is ALSO a policy wonk. People elected Bush because he was a perceived "leader" and NOT a policy wonk. I think we've had enough of that in this country.

Okay, first off "You're So Vain" was Carly Simon, not Paul Simon. And it certainly couldn't have been about Senator Paul Simon, no one with those glasses could ever be accused of being vain. But seriously, thanks for the tough love, I hope I'm tough enough to write a decent response.

First: Yep, I know about the Simon-Obama connection. Also knew about the Simon-Axelrod connection. (In fact, I first came across both Obama and Axelrod's names when I read Senator Simon's autobiography.) And I know about Senator Durbin's enthusiasm for Obama. And those connections really do matter to me and are part of the reason I'd like to support Obama. But ultimately it doesn't matter if Russ Feingold, Bruce Springsteen, my mom, and the ghost of FDR all endorse Obama, I'm gonna make up by mind about who to support based on my criteria.

And about those criteria, you accuse me of comparing Obama to perfection, and you're probably right. But is that a bad thing, if I also do that to all the other candidates? I don't expect perfection, but considering the importance of the job, why not compare all the candidates to your idea of the Best Possible President and see how they measure up? Three little side notes about not expecting perfection: one, do I say anything in my blog about voting for the Green Party or not voting if the Democratic candidate doesn't meet my standards? Hell no, I'll bust my hump to make sure whoever the Democratic candidate is wins in 2008-be it Obama, Hillary, or Mike Gravel. Second, do you see me trying to draft Howard Dean or Russ Feingold even though they have explicitly stated they aren't running? Am I even an active Draft Gore or Draft Clark person? No to both: I've accepted the candidates who are currently in the race and want to find out more about them. Third, I know political leaders are imperfect; I wrote a reply to an old diary by NuevoLiberal called "Feingold hero worship-WAY OVERRATED!" or some such where I list votes where I would have split company with Russ Feingold, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone, my three biggest political heroes.

Now, about Sam, Obama and cynicism: First, if Sam had replied to my comment, maybe I wouldn't have written this diary. But I don't think that's vanity. I thought that, when an official blogger for a campaign posted something at a neutral (non-candidate affiliated) blog, they might be seeking a dialogue with people who don't support their candidate. Naive? Perhaps, but while I know enough to know that if Barack Obama or Russ Feingold writes a diary they won't read or respond to the comments, I thought that when a staffer (especially a blogger!) posted a diary, they might be interested in dialogue. I thought that is what made blogs helpful to campaigns. If campaign bloggers only interact with bloggers who support the campaign, doesn't that make the role of blogs in campaign nothing more than being a bunch of online yesmen?

But you are right, Obama never called his critics cynics. But in his speeches he often presents a contrast between plans and hope (DNC Winter Meeting) or plans and political will (SEIU health care forum). He also seems to equate experience in Washington with cynicism, partisanship, and the "old politics" in general, and therefore his 2 years were enough to tell him that Washington needs new politics. I think these are false dichotomies, and I don't think Obama really means to make it sound like he is presenting some kind of contrast there; but I think he is trying to be dismissive of questions about his lack of plans and his lack of national experience, and my question would be: why be dismissive? Why create these false contrasts? Obama, his campaign, and his supporters have better responses: talking about his experience growing up in Indonesia, being a community organizer, and being a civil rights attorney, for the experience issue. For the policy issue, I think he should point out (as his issues pages do) all the things he has done, and then he could follow it with something like "And I'm working on a health care plan, and the reason its taking so long is I want to make sure it is the best plan out there. And when it comes out, I'll answer any questions you have about it and tell you why its the best plan there." To summarize a ridiculously long paragraph: why does Obama have to make it sound like plans are meaningless and experience just makes you cynical, why not focus on solely his ideas and his experience outside of office?

One more point: I guess the reason Sam's post bugged me is that I am rather tired of bloggers who support a candidate making it sound like every criticism of them is an Establishment/right wing frame. I didn't read that AP piece as a total hatchet job, I thought it was addressing a question that even progressive Dems had about Obama. Making sure our nominee can handle questions about policy and his qualifications for the job is an important thing for Dems to do. I don't think asking these questions now will hurt Obama in the general election, if he gets there. In fact, the "substance" issue will go away when he issues his health care plan...if not before. But I think these are legitimate questions; to put it in Dean 2004 terms I think it is liking asking questions about Dean's lack of national security background (fair) as opposed to the Dean "anger" issue (completley made up).

Third, if you or anyone else read this far, yes I know health care is complex. But I think someone running for president and making health care an issue should have a plan for it when they announce. I made the same criticism of John Edwards (offline, primarily) before his plan came out. I know its not the candidates fault that they have to announce ridiculously early; but I think: "do you have specific plans on the issues you care about, and if not, why exactly are you running for president?" is still a legitimate question to ask candidates as soon as they announce.

Finally, it's true, I have not read either of Obama's books, although I own the first one. And I didn't research his Illinois legislative record before writing this diary. And I will do both of those things before the primary election. But I did go to his website, and look at the issues pages, and I didn't find any comprehensive plans. Maybe that makes me lazy, but I have the feeling the rest of the electorate (the ones who don't own autobiographies of three different Illinois Senators) are even lazier. I'm sure reading the books and looking at his Illinois legislative record will show that Obama's a policy wonk who knows a lot about many issues (I never doubted that)...but I still want to see plans before I'm gonna line up behind him in the primary.

Thank you for your post. It has been a long time since someone called me lazy and vain and then ended by asking me to send money to the candidate they support. You have a bright future ahead of you as a telephone fundraiser!  

That's interesting that they all begin "Second..." What do the others all have as "First"? Is it always stuff about Feingold?

Seriously though, I really didn't intend for this to be a retread diary, and I'm sorry if it is. I was computerless for about a month ending last week, so I didn't visit myDD very often then, and I really hadn't seen a diary addressing my concerns about Obama in the past week, so I thought I'd try to raise them.

Please feel free to provide links to places where these "detailed responses" are.

Eh to be honest I think the only reason why there is so much Obama bashing from Edwards supporters is that people feel that Obama is pretty much demolishing edwards.  I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Though to be fair my view of edwards has been pretty tarnished by his supporters so who knows.

There are fair criticisms of Obama, and then there are petulant dumb criticisms of Obama. I think most of what's been said here is the former.

The fact is that these criticisms have been around for months now and they won't go away until Obama tells us whose side he's on. Because the way the country has been going for the last 27 years, there are clear sides and you can't be on everybody's team.

Obama has not had the greatest week. Why? Because people in the MSM are noticing that Obama is purposefully being vague about what he wants to do (or that he falls on the excuse of his campaign being only 8 weeks old). Part of this could actually be because Edwards has raised the bar so high with the progressivity and specificity of his plans to a level that probably has not ever been matched at this point in a Democratic Primary.

Nevertheless, these are still issues that people have been asking of Obama for months now. So the issues won't go away. Until he starts coughing up some concrete ways that show whether he's going to be a DLC president or a New Deal president, you'lll find more and more primary voters wondering if they really should support Obama. Especially when Edwards is right there and already has shown whose side he's on.

Someone made a comment that it's not really about the plans, it's about where you stand. And I think that sums it up. I've made comments about lack of plans, but that's not quite it. It's that Obama has not made it clear that he's going to stand up to the corporate plutocracy that's been on the ascendency since November 1980. He doesn't have to do that necessarily with policies or plans (although it sure helps). He could just do it with speeches if he wants to. But he hasn't. There's no excuse there. You don't need 8 weeks to come up with a speech saying which side your on.

So Senator Obama, whose side are you on?

I don't see very many posts in here at all trashing Obama.

Questioning someone on policy or on direction isn't trashing. And by saying it is, you are pretty much making the point the diarist was making.

It is still early, thats very true. But as the most inexperienced candidate (on the national scale) and the one with some of the loftiest rhetoric, Obama is certainly going to be subject to fair amount of skepticim and some criticism. To me that seems very fair and natural and it would be scary if it didn't happen.

If you are his supporter, I would think you would want his campaign to respond, to learn from what people say, and make the campaign stronger. The primary is really the time to get things down pat, because once you hit the general, things will get a lot tougher for any nominee.

posted here.