SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...

[DSTCHAOS]

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

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

AMEN!

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

I don't think that voters should have to read books by every candidate if they don't have the interest, but I bring up Barack's book to people who say that they want a more in-depth plan from him. If you're interested enough to complain and fault a candidate about "not having an in-depth plan" but are too lazy to spend a couple hours reading a book, then I guess that is your loss. But I'd stop blaming a presidential candidate who doesn't have the opportunity or media time to make sure you are fully informed on his or her positions simply because you expect to have these things spoon fed through commercials during American Idol or whatever.

Simply stated: if you don't have interest in detailed plans, that's fine. But don't falsely tell others that candidate A doesn't have a plan because you're too lazy to read a book that has it there, waiting for you to read it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't think that voters should have to read books by every candidate if they don't have the interest, but I bring up Barack's book to people who say that they want a more in-depth plan from him. If you're interested enough to complain and fault a candidate about "not having an in-depth plan" but are too lazy to spend a couple hours reading a book, then I guess that is your loss. But I'd stop blaming a presidential candidate who doesn't have the opportunity or media time to make sure you are fully informed on his or her positions simply because you expect to have these things spoon fed through commercials during American Idol or whatever.

Simply stated: if you don't have interest in detailed plans, that's fine. But don't falsely tell others that candidate A doesn't have a plan because you're too lazy to read a book that has it there, waiting for you to read it.

In the name of redundancy, voters don't have to read any candidates' books.

Elections are about social policies and a presentation of these policies and courses of action, regardless of political party or whether or not a candidate is "cool enough." Elections are not about candidates' books and whether or not voters are "interested enough" to devote time to searching for a particular candidate's detailed plan for America.

What gets me is that many people who are devoutly Dem or Repub did not make this decision based on the details of candidates' platforms. And their support for a particular candidate either wasn't based on having reads books or doing extensive research OR wasn't based on having read all the information available for every single candidate to do a compare and constrast before dismissing candidates. Why read Obama's book if you haven't read others candidates' books or literature that they put out? Because you're automatically an Obama fan? Maybe the others have more details or other tidbits in their writings, too.

What we're discussing in this thread is one reason why Americans are so disenchanted with politics and voting. There are a lot of adults (some otherwise extremely educated and accomplished) who have never and probably will never vote. I still say everyone should say to hell with these candidates as PEOPLE and go Independent (we rock!) so these candidates will TRULY battle it out. Of course it's more complex than that but it would make the current bickering between Obama and Hillary seem like a love fest.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't think that voters should have to read books by every candidate if they don't have the interest, but I bring up Barack's book to people who say that they want a more in-depth plan from him. If you're interested enough to complain and fault a candidate about "not having an in-depth plan" but are too lazy to spend a couple hours reading a book, then I guess that is your loss.

This is grossly disingenuous at best, and nonsense at worst - and, to boot, you're entirely missing the point.

If Obama's 384 pg. missive gives a platform-style plan that explains his plan as President, great - why is that information not given in a condensed fashion on his website or given as outline to his plans when he speaks?

The milquetoast descriptions or sunny descriptions without substance do not do this - why?

Originally Posted by skylark

But I'd stop blaming a presidential candidate who doesn't have the opportunity or media time to make sure you are fully informed on his or her positions simply because you expect to have these things spoon fed through commercials during American Idol or whatever.

Simply stated: if you don't have interest in detailed plans, that's fine. But don't falsely tell others that candidate A doesn't have a plan because you're too lazy to read a book that has it there, waiting for you to read it.

Right - so if I've exhausted every reasonable avenue (a 384-pg book seems like a stretch here), and I'm not making a judgment but rather an observation, I should probably suck up my couch-potato gut, quit everything and get myself informed? Right.

Ad hominem here is ridiculous - again, it's my responsibility to seek out information, but putting that info in a book released in '06 seems an awful lot like the facts are being relegated to the back page, which is my entire problem and screed to date, if you'll recall.

He doesn't have the opportunity? I disagree that in this digital age of unlimited server space and instant web access, he can't find time to put up where he'll balance the budget against his tax credits. This seems MUCH more likely, given the comparative resources, than having each American who is interested read his book.

There is no reason for the candidate to be the limiting factor in the flow of information from candidate to voter - after all, the candidate has much more wide-ranging control of this flow. Once again, this is not specific to Obama - in fact, it's pretty much the status quo for American politics over the last 20 years. That's the frustrating part - even the guy who is supposedly doing things differently is falling into the same trap.

A book? Seriously?

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is grossly disingenuous at best, and nonsense at worst - and, to boot, you're entirely missing the point.

If Obama's 384 pg. missive gives a platform-style plan that explains his plan as President, great - why is that information not given in a condensed fashion on his website or given as outline to his plans when he speaks?

The milquetoast descriptions or sunny descriptions without substance do not do this - why?

Right - so if I've exhausted every reasonable avenue (a 384-pg book seems like a stretch here), and I'm not making a judgment but rather an observation, I should probably suck up my couch-potato gut, quit everything and get myself informed? Right.

Ad hominem here is ridiculous - again, it's my responsibility to seek out information, but putting that info in a book released in '06 seems an awful lot like the facts are being relegated to the back page, which is my entire problem and screed to date, if you'll recall.

He doesn't have the opportunity? I disagree that in this digital age of unlimited server space and instant web access, he can't find time to put up where he'll balance the budget against his tax credits. This seems MUCH more likely, given the comparative resources, than having each American who is interested read his book.

There is no reason for the candidate to be the limiting factor in the flow of information from candidate to voter - after all, the candidate has much more wide-ranging control of this flow. Once again, this is not specific to Obama - in fact, it's pretty much the status quo for American politics over the last 20 years. That's the frustrating part - even the guy who is supposedly doing things differently is falling into the same trap.

A book? Seriously?

First, I am being completely genuine in thinking that someone who has a question that can be answered by reading a book should read the book or stop asking the question (maybe not the whole book, necessarily, but flip to the part discussing the issue you care about... there's this thing called an index...)

And there are limitations as far as putting so much detail in the media. First, if you go to much into detail in a speech (or debate answer), you risk having a single detail be taken out of context and that 10 second blip becomes the clip that gets played over and over for the next two days. It is easier to control media spin to simply summarize your position, without details. It is just too risky sometimes to do it, and it is a shame that it makes for a less intelligent discourse.

As far as not putting details on a webpage, I honestly don't have a good answer. I honestly think he should be more detailed.

As I'm thinking about this issue though, I'm remembering an experience I had designing my sorority chapter's website. Someone from HQ wanted me to use all the weird sorority-specific words to describe something and then define all those words and wanted all sorts of detailed paragraphs on the org's this or that. I ended up only moderately incorporating her advice because while it was well-meant, I thought that putting a small novel on the internet diluted the more simple message that the chapter wanted to portray. Maybe (I have no idea on this) but just maybe that was a strategic call on the part of the website designer for Barack to keep the message simpler. I see many flaws in this logic applied to a presidential campaign website (as opposed to a sorority website), namely because people who want to hear detailed plans of a candidate are more likely to be on a website and the more detailed parts could easily be put into downloadable PDF files so that it wouldn't be distracting to others. So, in the end I agree with you that this info should be on a website.

And yeah, maybe it does seem like Barack shouldn't play into the status quo of politics+media by keeping his surface message fairly simple since he is the candidate purporting to be for a new type of politics, but I think he has preserved his commitment to change in other respects that he's more likely to make a difference with. And you do have to play by some of the status-quo rules if you want to be a viable candidate. If you don't, at best you can have a Nader candidacy... but I don't think he's in the position right now to change the way the media covers political campaigns so I don't really judge him too harshly for not being a better example in this particular arena.

But I have to say this: characterizing your comments as "observations" instead of "judgments" is really just a semantics game. Why observe something that isn't true? Would it be fair for me to "observe" that Ron Paul hasn't laid out specific enough plans simply because I haven't passively heard the information? That's not really an observation, or at least not a meaningful one. I don't know if Ron Paul has specific plans, but that isn't because he has failed in his duty as a candidate to educate me, that is because I have failed to be interested enough to see if the info is out there. What I know of him (mainly from an article I read in the Economist) is enough for me to know I wouldn't vote for him. However, I'm not out there complaining that the reason why is because he doesn't have a plan (simply because I haven't seen him on TV articulating it). I think if you like the surface of what a candidate says, but you want to hear something more detailed, then that's when you go out and actively search for the answers. If you're not interested enough to go out and look for it, then just call a spade a spade and say that -- that you just don't find the candidate interesting enough to pursue further.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

And there are limitations as far as putting so much detail in the media. First, if you go to much into detail in a speech (or debate answer), you risk having a single detail be taken out of context and that 10 second blip becomes the clip that gets played over and over for the next two days. It is easier to control media spin to simply summarize your position, without details. It is just too risky sometimes to do it, and it is a shame that it makes for a less intelligent discourse.

As I'm thinking about this issue though, I'm remembering an experience I had designing my sorority chapter's website. Someone from HQ wanted me to use all the weird sorority-specific words to describe something and then define all those words and wanted all sorts of detailed paragraphs on the org's this or that. I ended up only moderately incorporating her advice because while it was well-meant, I thought that putting a small novel on the internet diluted the more simple message that the chapter wanted to portray. Maybe (I have no idea on this) but just maybe that was a strategic call on the part of the website designer for Barack to keep the message simpler.

I have no doubt it was a 'strategic call' - in fact, I would almost guarantee it is. That's what works - Family Guy lampooned it, but the method is proven. Seriously, this was entirely what I was referencing before, and what spawned this entire path of discussion.

Originally Posted by skylark

And yeah, maybe it does seem like Barack shouldn't play into the status quo of politics+media by keeping his surface message fairly simple since he is the candidate purporting to be for a new type of politics, but I think he has preserved his commitment to change in other respects that he's more likely to make a difference with. And you do have to play by some of the status-quo rules if you want to be a viable candidate. If you don't, at best you can have a Nader candidacy... but I don't think he's in the position right now to change the way the media covers political campaigns so I don't really judge him too harshly for not being a better example in this particular arena.

This is where we differ, and it is merely a matter of perspective - you're enamored with Obama (or, at the least, have determined he's the best option for your vote) so you would clearly prefer he "plays the game" and avoids anything that might hurt him. That's fine - it maximizes your personal utility.

I'm not so convinced that he actually would have the means or ability to make the changes he has discussed, and would like more explanation of how his vision relates to being President - a more effectual explanation, rather than a philosophical one (see where I'm going with the book portion?) - so obviously I disagree. I think we're both right, for ourselves (or our perspective).

Originally Posted by skylark

But I have to say this: characterizing your comments as "observations" instead of "judgments" is really just a semantics game. Why observe something that isn't true? Would it be fair for me to "observe" that Ron Paul hasn't laid out specific enough plans simply because I haven't passively heard the information?

This began because there was an assertion (by Drolefille) that Obama had more substance to his rhetoric than other candidates. An in-depth examination of his materials, specifically his website (to offset your concerns about limited time or ability to address issues in speeches or appearances) made this seem like it wasn't obviously the case - I'm not judging Obama on this, I'm observing that Drolefille's statement isn't necessarily factual, but rather an opinion.

Originally Posted by skylark

That's not really an observation, or at least not a meaningful one. I don't know if Ron Paul has specific plans, but that isn't because he has failed in his duty as a candidate to educate me, that is because I have failed to be interested enough to see if the info is out there. What I know of him (mainly from an article I read in the Economist) is enough for me to know I wouldn't vote for him. However, I'm not out there complaining that the reason why is because he doesn't have a plan (simply because I haven't seen him on TV articulating it). I think if you like the surface of what a candidate says, but you want to hear something more detailed, then that's when you go out and actively search for the answers. If you're not interested enough to go out and look for it, then just call a spade a spade and say that -- that you just don't find the candidate interesting enough to pursue further.

Again, this argument fails for me, because it completely ignores that Obama burying the details of his message in a book released before his candidacy and then nowhere else is a form of limiting the dissemination of his message, which is exactly what other candidates have done (which was the original assertion).

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Did anyone see Nightline (i think it was nightline) on ABC tonight? Obama is in Kansas promoting the mid-western roots and values that he got from his grandfather and mother. And I have no problem with that. But wasn't he the ultimate black man no less than three days ago? That's why I hate when race becomes the focus, because now (even though he's not really) it's just funny to see him look as if he's going back on his so called "blackness". The interviewer even had the nerve to ask him something along the lines he's promoting his "white family" to Kansas.

I'm so glad he got his butt whooped in Florida. Then he had the nerve to say that they're 50% -50% in reality b/c people were voting on name recognition because they were not allowed to campaign. Bullsh!t Barack! We just don't like you! It broke my heart to see Edwards still doing so bad...he deserves better. At least I can say I voted for him even though I'm glad Hillary won. (She even had her winning rally where I had my prom!! Had I known I would have gone!) It burns me-I'm seething-that we don't get to count! Why would our party burn us this way! If voting hadn't mattered to me, I would have stayed home.

Guiliani aka "Mayor 9-11 New York 9-11 WTC America" is apparently ready to put his tail between his legs (after coming in 3rd) and advocate for McCain (who only got 30-odd percent but it was enough to win when votes were split four ways!) It's about time! If you can't win in a state that has more NYers than NY then it's just a damn lost cause! Romney was second and Huckabee was 4th. I'm just praying we don't EVER see a McCain-Guiliani ballot! Or anything with Obama on it again for that matter.

[scbelle]

^^^
Well, if Florida Dems wanted their votes to count so badly, they should have petitioned the state party to play by the rules. Front-loading the primary season is bad for the party, for politics, and for America. That's one of the reasons we've been discussing a lack of defined agendas. The candidates simply don't have the time because states who feel self-important keep moving their primaries up.

As for the Obama remarks, wow. just wow. He's never touted his race, black, white or otherwise. In fact, all of the pundits I've heard who've been watching the campaign say that he's been very deft at not bringing race into the discussion. It was the Clinton campaign that brought all that crap into focus, along with the media. I think what he's doing in the Midwest is paying homage to his roots as far as values are concerned. Midwesterners are a lot like Southerners. We have deep-rooted values. And I don't think you have to be white to have them.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

I'm so glad he got his butt whooped in Florida.

[From the Washington Post]

Yes, Clinton, as expected, beat Barack Obama by a wide margin in the Florida primary. But all the Democratic candidates had agreed months ago to boycott the contest after the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to punish the state for moving up its primary date. The result was a primary without purpose, a show about nothing.


But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama's actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina's Democratic primary. "Thank you, Florida Democrats!" Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. "I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence."



Interesting.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

Did anyone see Nightline (i think it was nightline) on ABC tonight? Obama is in Kansas promoting the mid-western roots and values that he got from his grandfather and mother. And I have no problem with that. But wasn't he the ultimate black man no less than three days ago? That's why I hate when race becomes the focus, because now (even though he's not really) it's just funny to see him look as if he's going back on his so called "blackness". The interviewer even had the nerve to ask him something along the lines he's promoting his "white family" to Kansas.

I'm so glad he got his butt whooped in Florida. Then he had the nerve to say that they're 50% -50% in reality b/c people were voting on name recognition because they were not allowed to campaign. Bullsh!t Barack! We just don't like you! It broke my heart to see Edwards still doing so bad...he deserves better. At least I can say I voted for him even though I'm glad Hillary won. (She even had her winning rally where I had my prom!! Had I known I would have gone!) It burns me-I'm seething-that we don't get to count! Why would our party burn us this way! If voting hadn't mattered to me, I would have stayed home.

Guiliani aka "Mayor 9-11 New York 9-11 WTC America" is apparently ready to put his tail between his legs (after coming in 3rd) and advocate for McCain (who only got 30-odd percent but it was enough to win when votes were split four ways!) It's about time! If you can't win in a state that has more NYers than NY then it's just a damn lost cause! Romney was second and Huckabee was 4th. I'm just praying we don't EVER see a McCain-Guiliani ballot! Or anything with Obama on it again for that matter.

Awwww.......so tell us how you really feel about Obama

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

Did anyone see Nightline (i think it was nightline) on ABC tonight? Obama is in Kansas promoting the mid-western roots and values that he got from his grandfather and mother. And I have no problem with that. But wasn't he the ultimate black man no less than three days ago? That's why I hate when race becomes the focus, because now (even though he's not really) it's just funny to see him look as if he's going back on his so called "blackness". The interviewer even had the nerve to ask him something along the lines he's promoting his "white family" to Kansas.

Candidates connect with voters.

If white candidates can predictably show up at black churches to mingle with black voters then black candidates can discuss Kansas roots with Kansas voters. The white candidates are still white and the black candidate is stll black.

And, yes, race matters in elections because it matters everyday in America. Obama didn't make race matter.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Again, this argument fails for me, because it completely ignores that Obama burying the details of his message in a book released before his candidacy and then nowhere else is a form of limiting the dissemination of his message, which is exactly what other candidates have done (which was the original assertion).

I don't think that some "buries" details by putting them in a book. The details are there for anyone who is interested enough to look -- and quite frankly not all people are so why should Obama know that one particular detail is going to be of personal interest to a single voter. You're acting like there are only 1000 copies and someone would have to interlibrary loan the book to read it. And while technically the book was released before his candidacy, I'm pretty sure most people knew where the book was eventually going to lead. The fact that it came out before doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking about running for President when he wrote it. And it certainly doesn't mean that people are less likely to pick it up for insight into what he might do as President.

"This argument fails" makes me laugh a little (in a nice way... calm down, man). It reminds me of debate... by any chance were you a debater in HS or college? I ask because you're really committed to a line-by-line refutation style in your posts.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't think that some "buries" details by putting them in a book. The details are there for anyone who is interested enough to look -- and quite frankly not all people are so why should Obama know that one particular detail is going to be of personal interest to a single voter. You're acting like there are only 1000 copies and someone would have to interlibrary loan the book to read it. And while technically the book was released before his candidacy, I'm pretty sure most people knew where the book was eventually going to lead. The fact that it came out before doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking about running for President when he wrote it. And it certainly doesn't mean that people are less likely to pick it up for insight into what he might do as President.

I'd never even heard of his book before you started in on this. I have a degree in English, and I read more than 99% of the USA, I would venture. I read about candidates in a way that most Americans don't even consider. If I didn't realize this avenue existed, it seems like it's not exactly effective or even pushed on any reasonable level, to my mind.

I think you're putting too much emphasis or connotation to "buried" (and maybe I should pick a different word) - it just seems like the book is there, but there is an avalanche of puff-piece material on top, so it sinks to the bottom/back, never to be found except by people who have already read it. Not exactly effective.

Add to this the suspect fact that he profits off book sales, and I'm really just not a fan of saying "read the book, it's there" - and, no offense to you intended, but it kind of creeps me out in a Dianetics sense, too, which is awkward.

Originally Posted by skylark

"This argument fails" makes me laugh a little (in a nice way... calm down, man). It reminds me of debate... by any chance were you a debater in HS or college? I ask because you're really committed to a line-by-line refutation style in your posts.

It's that obvious? It probably is - that's why I put "for me" on there, though . . . I wanted you to know that I meant it in a 'soft' sense, that it just didn't work for me, not that I think you suck or anything.

The line-by-line action is likely a relic, but I would hate to consider a 500-word opus as some sort of summarized whole - I'd rather give the ideas their own merit and attention. I'm also retarded.