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

[skylark]

^^^ 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).

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by skylark

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).

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.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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).

It is not as if the federal government has never had influence over state & local education. I hate to use No Child Left Behind as an example, as it is such a bad one, but there you go.

Even if it isn't a program with a name, there is a lot that the federal government can do to help education. For instance, perhaps the federal government could provide a heavily funded grant program to districts that receive less than X dollars per pupil through its local funding. An application process for the funds could make sure the money goes to the districts that need it the most. I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there.

My point is that you can't just say "that's a state and local issue" and assume that a presidential candidate can't or won't step up and be a leader on an issue. It hasn't stopped presidents before, and I doubt it'll stop a president in the future.

[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).

[iotamason]

Go Huckabee!!!!

[scbelle]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by scbelle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by scbelle

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.

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.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by scbelle

I think that voters absolutely should investigate fully the agendas of the candidates.

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?"