Has anyone noticed that Palin does a great job of question dodging but fails horribly whenever she has to come up with specifics?
Look at the recent blunders in recent interviews. She tried to give a nothing answer first. Katie asked again. Palin gives another nothing answer. Katie asks again. Palin finally starts jumbling words around so she no longer even makes coherent sentences. Katie wins.
Biden MUST leverage his debating times to pose specific accusations and ask specific questions that Palin MUST answer specifically.
Why can't Palin do this? Is it a GOP tactic trick? NOPE. It's in her very religious cult that she must "ask god for the ability not to decide and to let him act through her." This was reported on only sparsely but she IS a member of this funky religious cult in Alaska. If you saw the e-mails that leaked when her account was hacked, a friend was reaffirming this back to her.
In other words... SHE IS UNABLE TO THINK FOR HERSELF. PERIOD.
She can doge questions probably as well as or better than any other politician out there. But she can't deal with information, facts, memories, or anything of that nature. She's practiced for far too long to get that out of her system. They're not going to get it back in a few days of high-intensity cramming.
If Biden can use this to his advantage in the debates there is nothing that Palin could have prepared herself for that will prevent her from making a total ass of herself. And I should add that if Palin does blow this as badly as I hope she will, it will sink McCain's ship. Florida will not go back to him and we might even get Indiana. And then there's the fallout that carries into the senate and house races. For the love of baked beans, please Biden, take this one home! -A. Moses
I'm watching Biden on the Today Show as I type this. He's talking tough and I'm glad about it! He's being specific about the issues and he's not letting McCain off the hook...his campaign is rapidly copy-catting again, of course. Saying whatever they need to in order to hang to to voters.
I'm also happy to see Obama's recent responses to what's happening.
Obama, McCain, and everyone supporting him (the Clintons) have to keep that momentum going!
Of course, critics will not appreciate the Barbra Streisand fundraiser for Obama/Biden- but you can't please everyone. Fundraising is what keeps the campaign moving. Most conservatives dislike her anyway. Obama and Biden should make it clear- all over the media before, during, and after the fundraiser- that hollywood support is not the issue. Lobbyists are funding McCain/Palin.
We have several specific suggestions that should gain Senator Obama increased media attention and should help attract undecided voters. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are dominating the news cycle, and even the negative coverage may help them in some way by providing attention. Senator Obama needs to seize the attention in a meaningful way.
First, we recommend that Senator Obama adopt and visually present and publicize something akin to a the "Contract with America" the Republicans under Congressman Gingrich developed in the early 1990s. One of the criticisms of Senator Obama has been a lack of specifics about what he plans to do as President. He has done a better job of providing those specifics in recent times, particularly during his acceptance speech in Denver, but this needs to be more emphatic, needs to be made crystal clear and memorable, and needs to be repeated over and over again. Senator Obama could sign the contract and make copies available on his website and by mail upon request. If Senator Obama draws up a plan of action with a number of specific policies he promises to pursue during his first term, it will gain attention and reassure voters who are repeatedly exposed to claims that Senator Obama is not prepared to be President.
Second, we recommend that the campaign, perhaps under the guidance of Michelle Obama with her considerable community organizing skills, send volunteers out to communities around the country, particularly in places where there are undecided voters and in battleground states, to ask people how they feel their government can best help them. Volunteers could visit schools, churches, community centers and, on behalf of the Obama campaign, ask for feedback that can help guide President Obama's first term. This will impress upon the folks in those communities, and others if they hear about it, Senator Obama's seriousness about listening to the American people and responding to their most pressing needs.
Related to this, Senator Obama could propose a call to large, profitable corporations to help fund community projects, including regular reports summarizing the use of their contributions, and offering tax benefits in return. He could reiterate a call for volunteers to serve communities in exchange for government scholarships. Senator and Mrs. Obama have plenty of ideas and experience along these lines, and we should hear more from them about just how they plan to move people to action on a grass-roots level.
Third, Senator Obama should drop a few names of well-respected people he intends to rely upon for advice during his first term, including some Republicans and independents. For example, he could mention Colin Powell and Wesley Clark on foreign policy and military matters. Better yet, the Senator could start by contacting some of those persons to discuss specific matters, and make sure the media notice that this contact is happening.
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Each of the three Presidential candidates marked the occasion with a speech.
Barack Obama spoke in Indianapolis about the actions of Robert Kennedy, who delivered the news in that city 40 years ago and appealed for calm. He talked about how Dr. King recognized the link between racial and economic justice, and how both of these are part of the larger struggle for fair and equitable opportunity for all.
Hillary Clinton spoke in Memphis, where King was murdered, about her memories of that day and her very emotional reaction to the news as a college student. She proposed setting up a cabinet level position to eliminate poverty in the United States.
John McCain spoke in Memphis also. He apologized for his vote against a federal holiday honoring Dr. King, and was booed.
From Obama's website: "Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."
Obama is making a tough choice here. He's being very specific and very brave in proposing a plan that his opponents could use to label his as a typical tax-and-spend liberal But this is not a middle class tax increase. According to the 2006 American Community Survey done by the U.S. Census, 8.5% of American earn more than $100,000 a year. So, let's say the top 10% of wage earners would be affected by this tax. If you're in the upper 10% of wage earners, from an income perspective, congratulations, you in the upper class, my friend. Sidenote: Anyone with a better idea, please step forward.
Meanwhile, let's see how specific Hillary gets on this issue...
Here is the link to the blueprint:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Wow, poor Senator Watson.
Let's all resolve to get to know our candidate a little better this week....Here are some links to get you started.
If you have any good links, please post them as a comment!
1. Congresspedia
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama
2. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
3. Library of Congress: (search "senate amendment agreements" for example)
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html
4. Senate website:
http://obama.senate.gov
5. Contrast article in politico.com:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8573.html
6. New York Times summary of Obama's Illinois Senate accomplishments
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html
7. ... and accompanying article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?scp=3&sq=obama&st=nyt
8. Mark Halperin's (online free for a limited time) Undecided Voter's Guide:
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061537301&WT.mc_id=news_HotHarper_Halperin_BI_Full_020108
9. Daily Kos Summary
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
For everyone who thinks Obama doesn't provide enough specifics, please take a look at this...
Click here to view Obama's comprehensive policy positions and download our Blueprint for Change policy book here:
BO's blueprint says: "...Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security ..."
But this specific is short on specifics. The SS Wage Base (the earnings up to $97,500 - 2007TY - now $102,000 for 2008TY => Barack change your speech to reflect this) is used not only to calculate contributions, but also to calculate benefits. SS is designed to replace a percentage of "Average Wage Index" - this % varies for low-medium-high earners. [What the definition of lo-med-hi is and what the %s are matter not for the moment.] Now, if you remove/increase the limit and require a $1,000,000 earner, say, to pay 6.2% (or whatever it becomes) of the $1M, then you would expect that their benefits would be based on the same number. It is difficult to conceive of a monumentally unfair design that says "Pay 6.2% contribution based on $1,000,000 and receive a benefit based on $102,000." Indeed.
So, Barack, have you developed the detailed specifics on this? If you lift the Wage Base Cap, what will the increased benefits cost, and have you saved Social Security?
Has anyone the real specifics on this Blueprint proposal?
Watching Senator Obama tonight, I finally felt that the attacks on his stump speeches had been deflated. Barack delivered specific strategic and tactical targets for his administration. He referred to himself as commander-in-chief. He laid out specific policy and program goals that made even the most biased pundits and wonks sit up and take notice.
I have said it before and I will say it again; Obama is the real deal. I wholeheartedly believe that there is no way that Hillary Clinton can match Obama's passion, vision or resolve to turn his words into action.
I recently spoke with my dad who is 80 and lives in Washington state. He and my stepmom caucused for Obama, although they were Clinton supporters last year. My dad's concern is this:Who will be Barack Obama's support staff in the West Wing?
My dad is concerned that Obama will end up with an administration like Jimmy Carter. He sees Barack as a smart, charismatic idealist with not a lot of experience at the executive table. He is afraid that Obama will bring in a cabinet like him with little ability to drive the political machine in Washington.
Personally, I think the best and brightest in Washington and across the country will line up to serve at the pleasure of President Obama. I would definitely like to know more about his campaign staff and who might translate from the campaign to the West Wing.
Barack Obama knows how to play the television camera; just don't play it. He gets real, keeps it real and forces the issue of speaking to the desires, the needs, the dreams of every class, gender and personality in the nation. Conservatives would do well to notice his stance on secure borders, national security and fiscal responsibility.
Join us or feel our wheels. Tonight we ride in mansions of glory, chrome-wheeled, fuel-injected and stepping out over the line.
So, the Clintons want specifics? I say, give it to them! In fact, the sooner you get your ideas out into the media, the sooner they will not be able to come up with the same ideas! Now, the talking heads on CNBC are already saying that a Barack Presidency will be bad news for WallStreet. Yeah, after Wallstreet has been the only folks who have prospered under the Bush Presidency, I would say, GOOD! (But I know that you cannot say that.) I suggest that you hone-in your ideas about creating hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs. First, there are the inner-city youth. We need to pay attention to them again, because the more time and reason they have to get into mischief, the more they will fail in life. Put them to work! If you'll recall, back during Reagan's time, there was a program called "CETA" and I can personally attribute to it's effectiveness in keeping myself and my brother out of trouble in the summer time, while helping our single-mother out with the finances who was unable to work. Basically, what I am saying, is, yes, USE RONALD REAGAN'S NAME and use it OFTEN! Tie-in the good things he did with what you will do. The Reagan Democrats, aka., "Perot" Voters, like myself, are the ones in the middle that will ultimately decide the election. This is who you need on your-side as I think you well know.
I've asked myself this question "Why is the media missing specifics of Obama's plans to re-shape America" as I'm glued to the television watching the debates, and primaries I hear over and over again many specifics about America's issues, what Obama's position on these issues are and how he plans to make a difference. From Healthcare reform, to technology, our economy, Iraq, Social Security, Education, Environment, Foreign Policy and many more. Why is it that I can have a conversation with someone and articulate that I hear more than rhetoric and the media cannot?
My thoughts are perhaps the media is seeking more details. If this is the case, it's a premature expectation to expect the next president of the United States to communicate the objectives necessary to achieve promises made through the campaign. Of course we all know that one can define the issues facing America, this is done. We can then speak to how we would make a difference, this is done. What more is needed at this phase of the campaign to satisfy hearing or understanding specifics of campaign promises? Haven't we all heard over and over again how Obama plans to combat America's issues? I have.
Why aren't the Cable News Network’s hearing what I'm hearing when they are broadcasting the events that clearly communicate Obama's specifics? Are they seeking a detailed project plan i.e., who does what, when, and how? Again this expectation is pre-mature. Actually, I don't see any candidate say any more than the next, that is; state the issue, explain how the issue is a problem and what each propose to do about it to make a difference, and perhaps general information about how they plan to make that difference. Here's an example:
Obama, how do you plan to improve education with respect to all people having an opportunity to obtain Higher Education? Response: "give monetary assistance of $4,000 to young adults who will be required to give back to their communities by volunteering where ever help is needed".
This is clear to me and specific enough. Now, is the media seeking specifics such as who is eligible to receive the monetary assistance, and how it will be disbursed? One can't possibly know these details until the plan is written. These types of specifics are considered part of the strategic plan and will more than likely convert to objectives that support the strategic plan. Am I missing something, are the full written plans to address each of America’s issues written? OK, let’s say they are, it’s still not necessary in my opinion to communicate the details. Who does that?
Shouldn't what we expect to hear relative to specifics on how differences will be made across America’s Known Issues be communicated at a High-level at this point in the campaign? What is the media actually doing here? Are they doing what they do best “Instigating” to increase ratings for their cable news network?
Hello, anyone out there have feedback on this?
It was great to see Senator Obama out in Wisconsin answering questions and talking specifics, while remaining the inspirational leader that is drawing in Democrats, Republicans and Independents. There is a feeling of inclusiveness at an Obama event that is just not present at the other candidate's events. At a rally in San Antonio, one of the speakers announcing Senator Clinton today mocked Republicans, to which the audience took glee in booing. To me, it was an illustration that 50+1 politics is still the status-quo for the other candidates.
At a town hall meeting in Racine, WI, which I caught part of on CNN Pipeline, it was great to have Senator Obama answer direct questions that were obviously (painfully) not scripted. From an onlooker perspective, in fact, I would say that the Obama team that organized and ran that town hall meeting might do a little better job queuing up questions and running a tighter event, as there were a couple of people that were distracting and unprofessional, making for a couple of uncomfortable moments. Group events with unscripted questions can have rules and operations to ensure that as many questions as possible are answered, and that everyone asking the questions is serious.
But, bravo to the campaign for holding the format. I for one would love to see more of it in the days to come.
Today I spoke with a friend who has been wavering back and forth between Obama and Clinton. She said something interesting: Obama is in a tough place, because he can't really give policy specifics and try to unite everyone at the same time.
It took me a while to figure out what she meant, but I finally got it. You see, there's a good reason Obama's not giving a lot of policy specifics. He is running a campaign to unite all Americans... not just Democrats, but all Americans. If he endorses a specific policy, then he automatically alienates the people who disagree.
So Obama's not giving specifics right now. It's probably better that way anyways. After all, the big decisions, such as universal health care, will all be different once they go through Congress. Obama is doing things differently. He's using the primaries as an opportunity to bring people together. "Unity," he quotes MLK, "is the great need of the hour."
The irony is that Obama *is* giving specifics in his stump speeches. They're just not kind of specifics we're used to hearing about. He's not giving a 5-point plan for health care, but rather a 5-point plan for bringing people together. He's not offering a detailed exit strategy for Iraq, but if you listen carefully enough, he is setting up the framework for international peace. He isn't selling policy. The more I hear from Obama, the more I appreciate the depth of his vision. He's trying to create a new type of politics, a politics of hope and inclusion. It's so different from everything else that's ever gone before, it's hard for us to even recognize it as politics. Who ever heard of a politician who won't attack his opponents? Hillary Clinton is flabbergasted by it, as are many others. Which is why we, understandably, clamor to hear more "specifics." Our politics has been defined by the "business as usual" of shouting at each other over small policy details, and that's what we expect to hear. But to Obama, the important specifics are the specifics of bringing us together again as a nation. Where's the beef? You're looking at it.
I think it's about time we demanded a different type of 5-point plan from our politicians -- the 5-point plan about how to (1) be a nicer person, (2) overcome our own differences, (3) construct a more just society at home, (4) make peace with our neighbors abroad, (5) and, in so doing, begin to tackle the great challenges of the 21st century. These are the specifics that a President Barack Obama would offer our country. And I for one am listening.
Video of this blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzZ7toN0gD0
