Obama: Where's the Substance?

GreedySmurf

Star
Registered
Where's the Substance?
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 18 February 2008

Madison, Wisconsin - Many pundits and the Clinton campaign keep asking where the substance is to Obama's campaign. There's a simple answer: in his plans.

It's true that his stump speeches are full of soaring oratory and do not satisfy policy wonks, but do a simple search of his web site and you will find substance. He also regularly gives policy speeches packed with specifics.

For example, on Saturday in Wisconsin, Senator Obama laid out his plan for revitalizing the Community College System.

Obama proposes to make tuition at a community college completely free for most Americans by creating a new "American Opportunity Tax Credit." He explained, "This fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is free. The credit will be available to families at the time of enrollment by using the prior year's tax data to deliver the credit at the time the tuition is due. Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months."

The senator also proposed creating a so-called "Community College Partnership" that would assess the role of community colleges and help to tailor their services to the needs of students and industry.

Senator Obama also laid out his plan for the economy in a speech to workers at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, on Wednesday.

In that speech, Obama said he would offer direct relief to victims of the mortgage crisis, and would also offer a tax credit to low- and middle-income taxpayers that will help them meet their mortgage obligations.

His job creation program focuses on infrastructure and "green energy jobs." He proposes spending $210 billion over ten years to create jobs in these sectors and retrain workers to transition to these opportunities.

Another proposal affecting workers would be in the area of retirement accounts. He would mandate employers to place a small percentage of salaries into a retirement savings account. Under his plan, the federal government would match the funds set aside.

For working parents who split time between earning a living and caring for their kids, Obama proposes expanding the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and he proposes doubling spending on quality after-school programs. He also would expand the "Family Medical Leave Act" to include more businesses and millions more workers, and would require every employer to provide seven paid days of medical leave a year.

On health care, the major difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are mandates. Both would set up a similar system that individuals could buy into. Clinton would mandate that everyone must buy in. Obama would only require that children be covered; he cited the situation in Massachusetts,where some people are being fined for not buying into a plan that they think they can't afford. Obama says he is committed to universal health care, but doesn't want to put an "unfair burden on individuals while we work to get there."

On Iraq, Obama has pledged to getting all US combat troops out in 16 months. Clinton will not set a date. Neither candidate would remove all troops; both believe a small force will be necessary to protect the embassy, and to protect Iraqis who have assisted our soldiers. Many antiwar activists oppose both Clinton's and Obama's plans, saying they don't go far enough, fast enough.

This article is not intended to be an endorsement of Obama on the issues. The real differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are very small. Senator Clinton also would invest in "Green Jobs;" she has a national service plan, and would provide similar tax credits. The corporate media are doing the country a disservice by echoing unfair charges that Obama's campaign is all about speeches and has no substance.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021808Z.shtml
 
Most people are just too damn lazy to research anything. They must be spoon fed information, yet they fill their heads up with what the celebrities are doing.

Big corporate control of the media.
 
Most people are just too damn lazy to research anything. They must be spoon fed information, yet they fill their heads up with what the celebrities are doing.

Big corporate control of the media.

Agreed! If its not on Faux News or have something to do with a celebrity most of the sheeple don't even pay attention. They don't want knowledge, they want mindless entertainment.
 
I like what Obama says about the trajectory of America, where this country is headed. I'm sure every candidate is worried about that but he's the only one to articulate it. Other than that his plans are typical democratic worldview. America only has two political philosphies Conservative and Liberal, every candidate will shape their platforms within those parameters.

As long as our higher education system is intact we will keep getting the same ol same ol because politicians are just rehashing theories they learned in school.
 
hp-logo-washpostcom.gif


<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#D90000">
Judge Him by His Laws</font>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
by Charles Peters

January 4, 2008 </b>


<b><span style="background-color: #FFFF6F">People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. </b></span> One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.

I do not think that a candidate's legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama's is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama's, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law.

Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html

</font>
 
Back
Top