Democrat Debates

interesteddad · April 28, 2007, 6:03pm

I don’t know where you get that idea. His guy Petraeus said this week that the Bush policy requires the current escalation to continue indefinitely.

hereshoping · April 28, 2007, 8:24pm

Obama has a wonderful voice, I must say; I could listen to him forever. Whereas Hillary’s = :eek:

(I’m going by voices now–not much difference it seems to me on the “substance” .)

interesteddad · April 28, 2007, 9:32pm

Hard to say at this point. Obama hasn’t offered any.

He did promise to post a health care plan on his website as soon as his campaign can come up with something.

He’s smart. He’s running a rockstar campaign. Policy issues would just muddy the waters.

epistrophy · April 28, 2007, 9:53pm

Here’s idad on Obama:

And here’s an editorial from today’s Washington Post:

Mr. Obama’s Worldview
An encouraging start to talking policy

Saturday, April 28, 2007; A18

BARACK OBAMA, who has been chided for failing to supplement his inspiring rhetoric as a presidential candidate with substantive stands on issues, took an important step this week toward correcting the deficiency. In a 40-minute address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama described a foreign policy that centers on continued American leadership in the world and a strong defense but that sharply differs with the Bush administration on Iraq and, at least in tone, on the fight against terrorism. The speech didn’t cover some important areas, leaving the Illinois senator much more to explain as the campaign progresses. For example, he said next to nothing about trade – a glaring omission in a speech that purported to outline a foreign policy for the 21st century.

Mr. Obama nevertheless made a worthy start at something we’d like to encourage: a vigorous debate on the issues during this extended presidential primary season. . . . 

As an opening statement of Mr. Obama’s philosophy, there is much that we found significant – and encouraging – in the Chicago speech.

<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701881_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701881_pf.html</a>

interesteddad · April 29, 2007, 3:15am

Have you read the speech?

I only see three concrete (as in cash money) proposals:

1) Obama supports the Bush administration plan to increase the size of the Army and Marines by 90,000 troops.

2) Obama calls for an increase of $25 billion a year in foreign aid. To put that number into perspective, it’s 1/4 of the emergency funding request for Iraq that passed through Congress this week.

3) Obama supports spending $50 million (loose change under the couch cushions) to establish a nuclear fuel bank.

His proposal for Iran is to get the United Nations and Gulf States to “increase economic pressure”. He doesn’t address a post cut n’ run Iraq policy at all.

In a major foreign policy address, he doesn’t mention Mexico or any other country in Latin America or South America. He only mentions China and India in the context of environmental issues. He doesn’t touch on the relationship with Israel. These are fairly glaring omissions.

I would say the Post has it right. This speech was, at best, an “opening statement”.

I can’t blame Obama. There’s no benefit to him in laying out policy positions and engaging on the issues. The more experienced candidates in the race would run circles around him. He’s much better off sticking to the “gleaming city on the hill” approach. “High fallutin’ language” as Edwards calls it.

Democrat Debates

CONNECT WITH US