I actually did check out Obama's website a couple of months ago and that's when my opinion of him began to decline. However, in an election, you can't assume that all voters are going to be proactive and search out your campaign ideas. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in this country who will vote stictly on who they "like" or based on what they see in campaign ads.

Senusret has a point...you have a woman and a Black man running for the presidential nomination...to a degree, you have them both splitting the votes just to get on the ballot.

And then when it became an issue of race (who will Black people vote for) it just muddied the waters even further.

Hillary isn't losing Black votes because Black people are jumping on Obama's bandwagon...she is losing because Blacks are really looking into what she has to say and how it will affect us should we decide to choose her as the presidential nominee.

And as far as Obama not 'saying' anything....you should have heard mcCain on Meet the Press earlier this month.

Absolutely! I think the media has really fallen short in distinguishing this in polls. I think that their reports risk implying that black people vote black because they are -- pretty offensive to me, at least. I think Hillary and Bill's recent comments are example enough that if they actually do understand modern racial conflict, they don't really care enough about it to avoid seemingly naive racially charged remarks about Obama (namely, the MLK and Jesse Jackson comments).

Interesting you should say that... Because some of my "seasoned sorors" who only obtain news from the newspaper, television and radio were discussing how worried they were with the "real or implied threats" that Obama was getting from the old guard racists, such as the KKK and other white supremacists. They were remarking how Obama needed Secret Service protection early in his campaign.

What piqued my interest was that my "seasoned sorors" were very concerned for Obama's overall safety and maybe the US says their ready, but is really not...

You have at least 4-5 generations voting here and each generation saw great differences in the world overtime - as evidenced by Andy Rooney's comments about what is a Recession vs. a Depression... I think that is how sly comments are made.

My point is in regards to your "grassroots" statement: The young and "enlightened young", are realizing (or reinvigorated) to see how they can "move mountains" again and accomplish the true heritage of the United States. I don't think US racism/bigotry will die if Obama wins, but it will be removed from active government sanctioning to into psychological problems where it should rightfully be.

OK...but I'm truly disinterested. ;)

I don't find his platform any more developed than anyone else's - for instance, his economic plan is just a series of tax credits, with no explanation of where the Federal gov't will make up the lost income.

Then there's this:

This is the epitome of "all talk/no action" - most of it is quite hollow, with things like "working to ensure competent, effective teachers" resulting in eye-rolling. So you support "career pathways that provide ongoing professional development"? You mean like the reason why every school district in the nation has planned early-out days every month for teacher development? Oh, now it's a "career ladder" with a non-described "reward" for accomplished teachers, though - even under that name, it's just as empty.

Obama is a wonderful orator and a very smart man, but I don't find any more depth or specificity in his views than in any other candidate's, for either party.

^^^ If you're interested enough in his concrete plans, pick up his book. He is more detailed in it, for instance, on his view of education policies. He says that he supports programs that pay teachers at least partially based on merit, but is careful to point out that the means of evaluating good teachers should be designed by educators themselves (not merely an evaluation of students standardized test scores).

I'm not 100% sure on this next part, but I'm pretty sure he also talks about how he'd like to see the public school funding system change so that property taxes more evenly fund schools (so you don't have adjacent districts with incredibly disparate resources based on the economic differences between those districts).

This is the part that interests me:

Voters shouldn't have to pick up a candidate's book to find out their in depth plan. The average voter does not have the time (or even interest) to read these people's books but rather expect for the candidates to lay their plans out so everyone can access and be informed if they so choose.

Hell, even "No Child Left Behind" sounded good to many people at first but its implementation was bad and it suffered the way many social programs suffer. It's an example of how seemingly proactive approaches can have positive and negative consequences.

What's going on is that regardless of how "exciting" and seemingly "groundbreaking" this election is, it is just the same old song and dance with different (and more diverse) players.

Every candidate will say what they think will get a vote, whether they will implement the plan or not--and whether the plan will work or not. The candidates who "sound good" or "look cool" right now should be given the same critical eye and approach that any other candidate is given.

With that said, as an Independent I'm not doing cartwheels over these candidates or what happened in South Carolina. My vote is still up in the air until I see something in a particular platform and candidate that grabs me on the Repub or Dem side. And that can grab America for social change. The education, Iraq war, and blahzey blah rhetoric is typical. The question is what's going to make this candidate follow through on this when she or he gets into the White House. And what's going to make the rest of the government and our citizens work together for what needs to get done--whatever folks think needs to get done (the debate over "what needs to get done"/"whose agenda matters" is another reason why nothing really gets done).

/end rant

AMEN!

Except that this is a state and local issue, not a federal issue (which Michigan tried to fix and it's still really messed up).

The inherent problem with the primaries (although I admit they are necessary) is that you have to pit people with similar philosophies and ideas against each other. It's tough to attack their stands on the issues, so, in our attacking political environment, they end up attacking things that shouldn't even be brought up. Then, after the primaries and the Conventions, they have to all rally to support the very person they attacked.

Go Huckabee!!!!

I don't know, maybe I come from a different school of philosophy. I think that voters absolutely should investigate fully the agendas of the candidates. Voting is a serious issue, and should not be done without being fully educated on the issues. Candidates are NOT teachers (except for maybe Ross Perot; God love him and his pie charts.). Democracy is an exercise in intellect. I'm tired of people thinking that all the information should just come to them. That could be as a result of the media age we live in, but I think it needs to be changed. Why not write to the campaigns and ask questions? I do this frequently, and do get answers. Go to a rally and ask a question. This isn't high school. It's not a popularity contest. You really need to seek the answers to your questions before you cast a vote.

Well, this is a fine opinion, but I would guess it's demonstrably false - the candidates bear the full burden of "educating" voters on the reasons to vote for that candidate, and voters bear the burden of making an informed choice, it would seem. However, I'm not sure the candidate side actually benefits from meeting that burden - and most campaign strategists seem to agree.

While I like the aplomb with which you meet your own needs, often these questions (especially in "town meetings" and debates) are met with the same lame, hollow rhetoric that infects the speeches, web sites and publications from each candidate, are they not? In my experience, they most frequently are - and, of course, YMMV.

One thing - I think you're really ignoring the extent to which the answers people seek are hidden, intentionally obfuscated, or don't actually exist in any substantive (or reasonably accessible) form.

As far as my "teacher" comment, I just mean that the federal government is a huge beast and there are many parts to the whole that will be affected by single decisions. A candidate does not have the time (and in some cases, I would venture to say the experience or judgment) to tell you, the voter, how his platform will affect everything. That's why a voter's background reading is essential, IMHO.

I do agree that campaign strategists will want to gloss over certain areas of a candidate's platform. That is to be completely expected. They like to present a nice, lovely package to the voter, full of promises that often times turn out to be bulls#^$.

I think that it comes down to how one poses a question as to what kind of answer you get. A lot of questions I've heard at town hall meetings and debates are very generalized and do not require specific answers. People should figure out how to ask questions that require an answer in measurable terms. A few questions have been more pointed, and I can most definitely tell when a candidate is trying to "spin" to give an "acceptable" answer, versus giving the specific answer that everyone with half a brain knows is there, so I do agree with you that in part, the full truth is shrouded and all the candidates do lack the capacity for FULL disclosure.

Not reading someone's book(s). Barack Obama has a quite a few books and voters shouldn't have to read any of them.

None of these candidates are really that interesting as people (Obama says it's not about him but about change...but a lot of this is really about him) that their books should be expected to be read by the masses.

"A vote for Obama is a vote for...his books?" :(