NationStates Jolt Archive

Barack Obama's team

So far, so very good
Nov 27th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The president-elect is proceeding with all deliberate speed

http://media.economist.com/images/20081129/4808LD4.jpg

AFPIN THE absence of any real detail about what he plans to do, it is Barack Obama’s staff choices that provide the best indications as to what sort of president he will turn out to be. And so far the signs are encouraging, both in terms of the process and the results. Mr Obama is moving much faster and more smoothly than most incoming presidents manage—without rancour, hiccups or (unplanned) leaks. And his choices are reassuring, especially for those who feared a shift to the left.

On the economic side, by giving the two main jobs to pragmatic centrists—Tim Geithner for treasury secretary and Larry Summers to chair the National Economic Council, the White House body that co-ordinates economic policymaking—Mr Obama has shown that he values experience over ideology, and competence over personal loyalty (see article). Some of those who worked hardest to get him elected have had only meagre reward for it, whereas Mr Geithner is someone whom Mr Obama does not know well. The appointment of Peter Orszag, a noted critic of lax spending, to run the budget office is another good move: it hints that Mr Obama will be a spending hawk as well as a stimulator. On the security side, by keeping on George Bush’s first-rate defence secretary, Robert Gates, and (probably) by choosing a former general, Jim Jones, as his national security adviser, Mr Obama is showing that he will not let himself be tagged with the “Defeaticrat” label.

There are, of course, a few potential pitfalls. For every rational businessperson reassured by the fact that Mr Obama has appointed economically literate free traders, there will be a union leader moaning that a bunch of Clintonian retreads will never deliver the change America needs. Mr Obama will need to manage the threat of disillusion among some of his more enthusiastic supporters with some care. As things look now, he should be able to deliver on the issue that many on the left care most strongly about, a phased withdrawal from Iraq (see article); and he is also likely to please them with the scale of his stimulus plans. Other sops to the left—notably the removal of secret ballots for union votes—look more dangerous.

The other worry concerns a couple of management issues. Many people had expected Mr Summers to return to his perch at the Treasury. It is not clear whether Mr Summers, brilliant but opinionated, is really the ideal man for the nominally junior role at the NEC, involving the forging of consensus.

Worth a Hill of beans
Then there is Hillary Clinton. Many of Mr Obama’s advisers are horrified by the idea that she will become secretary of state, pointing out not just that Mrs Clinton is surrounded by people who loathe him, but also that she has a bad track record as a manager (her presidential campaign and attempts at health reform in the 1990s are two examples) and that scandal seems to dog the Clintons wherever they go. On the other hand, Mrs Clinton is intelligent and formidably hard-working and has undoubted star power. She has seen a lot of the world and takes a close interest in the Middle East. She also showed that she could be a team player in the Senate (a period when her husband stayed more firmly in the background).

On balance, this is a gamble just worth taking—not least because it puts the onus on Mrs Clinton to make it work. She will have to give up her Senate seat. If she lets those around her resort to their old tricks, she will suffer most. If she focuses her remarkable energy on the task at hand, she could achieve a lot.

Interesting look at what Obama's administration is going to look like, obviously from a (thank God he's moving rightwards) Right-Wing position, from the Economist.

I'm also happy with this. I am excited for the Obama Presidency and so far, I've seen nothing but reason to be optimstic about Obama. I feel like he is acting like Reagan, in a way (and about the only comparison between Obama and Reagan you can make), in that he is filling his cabinet with very very intelligent, well respected people.

What do you think about the up and coming Obama administration?

Shouldnt you be joining your right wing cohorts in doomsaying and predicting the fall of the US? ;)

Shouldnt you be joining your right wing cohorts in doomsaying and predicting the fall of the US? ;)
No fair...you know damn well how I feel about the Obama Presidency...remember what I was posting on Election night? :p

Anyway...people give Obama too much credit if you ask me, if they think he can fell America like some old weak tree. ;)

No fair...you know damn well how I feel about the Obama Presidency...remember what I was posting on Election night? :p


Im just fucking with you;)


I have to say I object to your poll, however. He hasnt really changed. He said all through the primaries and all through the election he'll surround himself with competent, intellegent people, sometimes former rivals, sometimes ideological rivals, to get the best advice he can. Thats what hes doing.

I voted for the guy because he can take advice and doesnt ignore facts when they interfere with his agenda. I dont think you can say he's "changed" because hes doing what he campaigned on.

Im just fucking with you;)


I have to say I object to your poll, however. He hasnt really changed. He said all through the primaries and all through the election he'll surround himself with competent, intellegent people, sometimes former rivals, sometimes ideological rivals, to get the best advice he can. Thats what hes doing.

I voted for the guy because he can take advice and doesnt ignore facts when they interfere with his agenda. I dont think you can say he's "changed" because hes doing what he campaigned on.
I think that's the point though...he changed his views on Iraq, on some of his more 'socialistic' policies (he cited doing so because of the economic climate), some of his more enviornmental policies (same reason as previously stated), has basically stated he's gonna continue the war on terror and ramp it up in places like Pakistan...etc etc

I don't disagree with it....I just think, no, know, that alot of people who voted for him did it because they thought he was so ideological, a saviour, if you will, who was going to change everything and all that...the same stuff that got him alot of his most enthusiastic supporters was the stuff that scared the far right in this country.....

I've been optimistic about Obama because I didn't really think he was going to be like that, and he hasn't been. He's picked a very centrist crue, is not going to work against global Capitalism with some of his protectionist rhetoric, and his seems to have his head in the right place when it comes to foreign affairs.

It's obvious that there are people that don't like the direction Obama is going, he's been moving rightwards (to the Center) since just before the Election. That's the whole point of the Economist writing this article. ;)

he changed his views on Iraq

No, he didn't. I'm pretty sure he didn't start believing the war was worthwhile, or that it should have been fought.

No, he didn't. I'm pretty sure he didn't start believing the war was worthwhile, or that it should have been fought.

Quite right. His position has always been to finish the job and get this economic Albatross OFF our necks.

And as a right-winger, I gotta say he's looking damn good to me.

I'm happy with it. He's doing the intelligent thing by surrounding himself with people who know what they are doing and can get things done instead of just placing a bunch of like-minded yes men into his cabinet. He's also avoiding the mistakes Carter made by not placing Washington outsiders into high-level cabinet positions and instead taking the Kennedy route (remember, Lyndon B. Johnson was definantly a Washington insider). So it's all good. Besides, I supported Hillary in the primaries so having her as Secretary of State is a bonus.

Ah, the candidate of change, stocking his cabinet with so many familiar faces.

No fair...you know damn well how I feel about the Obama Presidency...remember what I was posting on Election night? :p

Anyway...people give Obama too much credit if you ask me, if they think he can fell America like some old weak tree. ;)

even if he gets too much credit its about time the democrats had a teflon president like raygun.

even if he gets too much credit its about time the democrats had a teflon president like raygun.
i WILL second that one. i think the last time we had one was kennidy. but i also think there are more important issues then the well being of any political party, or its idiological core agenda, and that means the kind of world we all have to live in and how we have to live in it. and how we choose, statistically, culturally, to live in it.

30 years of loonacy have 'defined' the 'center' so far to the 'right', that there really is no center any more, hasn't been for a good long while. one of the things i see obama as doing, and appearantly claiming to be doing, is to try and reinvent one.

i don't know if that's good or bad, but there's things people seem to have forgotten about how things actually work. the loonatic right didn't care how anything actually worked, other then symbolic value and human emotions, and thought they could get away with not caring forever. which is why we're in the mess we're in now.

obama looked, and still, granted to perhapse a slightly lesser degree, like someone who has at least a little better grasp of reality. whether or not its enough more of one, only time will tell, but its still obviously at least a little better then what we've seen in a long long time.

that's probably the beggining and end of all it is, but even the smallest steps in the right direction are such a radical departure from the recent past.

i'm not holding my breath for myricles, but i'm still hoping for them.

for people, the generality of the body politic, to see through how many of their own emotional attatchments, are at the very root of the difficuties, statistically, we've all inflicted on ourselves.

that's the big myrical, if it can be made to happen. kicking the corporate mafia out of the catbird seat is both more difficult and easier, it really just depends first on getting people, all of us, to open our eyes and be a little more honest with ourselves, about what our actual priorities, personally, are creating a market for, that creates these conditions, these trends in the world around us, we all end up having to live with.

we certainly don't have to give up any LEVEL of tecnology, just our emotional attatchment to achieving it and enabling it in ways that are inheirently self destructive. to get it through our thick heads that yes, there really are ways of doing that, that are long proven, that work, that's its a matter of shifting incentives that motivate the various methods of implimentation.

we need a top spec of the avoidance of causing suffering, and after, under that, to take an honest objective engineering approach, to finding, isolating, understanding, the real problems, and solving them, instead of letting arbitrary emotional attatchment to familiar ways of doing things get in the way of doing so.

this is of course both parties claim for their perspective, as do number of other idiologies. the reality though is that no idiology can, and limiting ourselves to the chauvanism and prejudice of any one of them is again part of the problem and self defeating.

yes we need infrastructure, there's almost no reason to have any government in any form without it, but transportation DOESN'T have to equal the automobile and energy does NOT have to equal burning anything.

those are two of the big things. i guess i'm guilty of turning everything into the same lecture, so i beg forgiveness, but really, these are the things that are at the root of what, how we experience, creates how things around us are and seem, energy, transportation, and of course population, which isn't solved by war or military means either, not in the long term which is what we also need to become more concerned with.

so what obama is doing, is best known to obama himself of course, and i really don't feel able to judge it entirely untill after he's been sworn in, for at least several months.

i have my skepticisms, like many do, but i refuse, at this point yet, to start making the kind of assumptions, that were readily self suggesting and appearant under previous administrations

Ah, the candidate of change, stocking his cabinet with so many familiar faces.

Because change cannot happen unless EVERYTHING is changed! Up must be converted to down! Black must henceforth become white! Lollipops and gumdrops MANDATORY!

Because change cannot happen unless EVERYTHING is changed! Up must be converted to down! Black must henceforth become white! Lollipops and gumdrops MANDATORY!Everything? No, everything needn't be changed.
Nonetheless, one would expect that his cabinet choices would indicate his plan for the future.
His plan for the future seems to be the same old same old.

Everything? No, everything needn't be changed.
Nonetheless, one would expect that his cabinet choices would indicate his plan for the future.
His plan for the future seems to be the same old same old.

One would expect that, only if one expected the concept of "change" to again be dependent on "new faces" in the cabinet. An unrealistic and silly assumption on your part.

Ah, the candidate of change, stocking his cabinet with so many familiar faces.

My company (100,000 staff) got a new CEO recently. The rest of the management team remained entirely unchanged. The amount of change in the last three months is astounding.
Like the USA, we still have essentially the same product mix and core priorities.
Like the USA, we still have the same constituency (customer base)
Like the USA, we still have the same general income stream
Like the USA, we still have the same overall infrastructure
None of these things have changed, but our direction most certainly has shifted. It's not about changing the people around, it's all about refocused priorities.

For example: We just heard in this morning's CEO broadcast that the bonus structure is being retooled to point more to individual accountability and less towards departmental short term profit. If you don't think that you can influence peoples' work ethic by making their pay reflect their own work rather than a collective (and largely uncontrollable) target, you've never worked with the kind of motivated people we have here.

I've got first hand experience with changing the Top Dog, and I've seen it work. Even something as simple as "hands on" versus "hands off" management style can percolate through the whole system. Obama doesn't call himself "The Decider". He doesn't need to label himself with some bullshit sound bite name. It's obvious from his style and comments that he's calling the shots.

I couldn't be more pleased that he's bring in experienced people, and that they're coming from the center. I lived through Carter's "outsider" White House and Clinton's "diversity first, competency second" staff picks. This is a Good Thing.

Everything? No, everything needn't be changed.
Nonetheless, one would expect that his cabinet choices would indicate his plan for the future.
His plan for the future seems to be the same old same old.
Yes. In order to bring change, he must fill his cabinet with unqualified fools who have no experiance what so over.


So far, hes made good on his promise of "change" and he's not even president yet. Hes filling his cabinet with people who will give him good advice, rather than building an echo chamber. Thats change from the past 8 years.

I think the President Obama who will never lie to you, lol. The President Obama change you can believe in lol, his own very clever campaign slogan to mean all things to all voters thinks he can govern which ever way he wants no matter who he appoints to his cabinet as long as they carry out his policies. Change to President Obama means whatever President Obama decides change is. The kind of change you voted for may not be the kind of change you get. Time will tell.

Ah, the candidate of change, stocking his cabinet with so many familiar faces.
As a leftist columnist put it, this doesn't actually count as "bad news"; Obama filling up his cabinet with old friends from Chicago would be "bad news".
[that quip was made before the Blago blow-up]

How dare the candidate promising change appoint people who can actually get things done! How dare he actually take steps towards fulfilling his own campaign promises?

I think the President Obama who will never lie to you, lol. The President Obama change you can believe in lol, his own very clever campaign slogan to mean all things to all voters thinks he can govern which ever way he wants no matter who he appoints to his cabinet as long as they carry out his policies. Change to President Obama means whatever President Obama decides change is. The kind of change you voted for may not be the kind of change you get. Time will tell.

Dude, can you even make a coherent point on why you think Obama's going to be a lousy President? I mean, an actual statement instead of this "Obama's Not The Change" tripe you've been spouting ever since the 2008 campaign started. I know your whole political viewpoint is primarily defined by your vendetta against Bill Clinton for sending Little Elian back to Cuba but, sheesh, at least pretend you have a legitimate viewpoint.

Or if you can't, you can hook up with Dorksonia, New Mitanni and Potato Boy to start an NSG "Obama iz teh ebil" club.

How dare the candidate promising change appoint people who can actually get things done! How dare he actually take steps towards fulfilling his own campaign promises?

How dare he break his promise to Code Pink!

How dare he appoint Clintonites over his promises not to appoint Washington insiders!

How dare he break his promise to Code Pink!

How dare he appoint Clintonites over his promises not to appoint Washington insiders!

How dare he not exemplify openness and transparency by sending us all extreme close-ups of his penis! Because that's what openness means!

Just like his promise of "change" means that from now on the force of gravity will repel instead of attract!

How dare he not exemplify openness and transparency by sending us all extreme close-ups of his penis! Because that's what openness means!


I lol'd

How dare he appoint Clintonites over his promises not to appoint Washington insiders!

Show me where he has said he wont appoint Washington insiders.


I wont hold my breath.

Show me where he has said he wont appoint Washington insiders.


I wont hold my breath.

I will.
...
...
...
*Keels over dead*:eek2:

The reason I voted for Obama, is precisely because he DOESN'T ACT LIKE KNOWS EVERYTHING. He has a vision for what America can be, he knows he can't do it alone, so he's gonna hire teh people he knows are the most knowledgable, take their advice, and act accordingly. and He WON'T do something just because he said it to get elected if it turns out to be bad for the U.S.
Take for example raising income tax on the wealthy. Before the economic crisis, raising taxes on ppl who earn $250k+/ year was a good idea. Right now, raising taxes on anyone, no matter if they earn $10 million a year, is a bad idea, as it will make the situation worse. He knows it, so he won't do it, Right now that is... maybe later.
Point is, he wont do something that is unrealistic, or irresponsible just because he promissed to eqarlier to stay in power.
That is change I can beleivein

How dare he break his promise to Code Pink!

How dare he appoint Clintonites over his promises not to appoint Washington insiders!

And if his Cabinet appointees were all people with no Washington ties, you'd be bitching about how none of them have any experience.

And his choices are reassuring, especially for those who feared a shift to the left.
This is something I don't get. I can't think for the life of me when Obama ever followed "change" with "to the left." He distanced himself, in fact, from any sort of set system of political beliefs, which was probably why he was so successful. The only people who paraded around the idea that Obama was very liberal were the McCain-Palin campaign, and in the misleading and cartoonish style of attack ads. From interviews with people who knew him in Chicago, Obama is more pragmatic than liberal, and I imagine the ideology of his appointees was not his biggest concern when choosing them.

Ah, the candidate of change, stocking his cabinet with so many familiar faces.
He's a reformist, what would you expect? A fundamental shift in the way that America is governed? He's just going to patch things up enough to keep the US from collapsing for another century or so, until the next big crisis.

He's a reformist, what would you expect? A fundamental shift in the way that America is governed? He's just going to patch things up enough to keep the US from collapsing for another century or so, until the next big crisis.

And that crisis will be the start of the New Roman Empire! *Rubs hands in a mixture of glee and terror*

And that crisis will be the start of the New Roman Empire! *Rubs hands in a mixture of glee and terror*Who's going to be the first Caesar?

Who's going to be the first Caesar?

Well, when the zombie epidemic strikes the year before, Julius Caesar will rise from the grave...:eek2:

he was cremated

he was cremated
That will just make it all the more miraculous!

yes, yes it will.

One would expect that, only if one expected the concept of "change" to again be dependent on "new faces" in the cabinet.One does expect the concept of change to be dependent on at least a significant portion of new faces in the cabinet, yes.

My company (100,000 staff) got a new CEO recently. The rest of the management team remained entirely unchanged. The amount of change in the last three months is astounding.
Like the USA, we still have essentially the same product mix and core priorities.
Like the USA, we still have the same constituency (customer base)
Like the USA, we still have the same general income stream
Like the USA, we still have the same overall infrastructure
None of these things have changed, but our direction most certainly has shifted. It's not about changing the people around, it's all about refocused priorities.

For example: We just heard in this morning's CEO broadcast that the bonus structure is being retooled to point more to individual accountability and less towards departmental short term profit. If you don't think that you can influence peoples' work ethic by making their pay reflect their own work rather than a collective (and largely uncontrollable) target, you've never worked with the kind of motivated people we have here.This doesn't sound like much of a change, unless individual accountability was not something that was particularly considered before.

Yes. In order to bring change, he must fill his cabinet with unqualified fools who have no experiance what so over.Because not being part of the Washington machine automatically makes somebody unqualified?

So far, hes made good on his promise of "change" and he's not even president yet. Hes filling his cabinet with people who will give him good advice, rather than building an echo chamber. Thats change from the past 8 years.Sure, but every candidate this election cycle promised to do something different than what occurred in the past eight years.

He's a reformist, what would you expect? A fundamental shift in the way that America is governed?That's what 'change' would mean, yes, or at least a fundamental shift in something else.

i dont think you understand what CHANGE means in this circumstance.

change from what? from george bush and the republican policies that he has instituted. change from the "lets rake in as much money as we can for our special interests" stuff that has been going on for the past 8 years. change from the divisive "the other guy isnt just wrong he is evil" bullshit that permeates congress.

it was never a promise to put in people who dont know anything about the job they are being tapped for. it was never a promise to institute wild liberal policies no matter what shape the country is in. it was never a promise to change the fundamentals of our system.

it was a promise to institue health care reform, to end the war in iraq, to do what needs to be done to stabilize afghanistan, to focus on the middle class instead of the rich, to make smart decisions that are good for the country, to have the government do its job again.

so far he is doing what he promised. we'll see how good it is one he is actually in charge but i am very hopeful that he will do as good a job as anyone can do to get the country back in some semblance of working order again.

honestly, having a man who wants to do the job of president is a big change.

What? The American Empire doesn't exist yet? So how come its military is spread out all over the world and they're hiring mercenaries to deal with provincial rebellion?

i dont think you understand what CHANGE means in this circumstance.

change from what?From the same people that have been running things, for a whole lot longer than eight years.
Obama had some credibility to accomplish this because he hadn't been in Washington that long, and therefore is less likely to have become corrupted by the process.
His cabinet picks, however? Not so much.

from george bush and the republican policies that he has instituted. change from the "lets rake in as much money as we can for our special interests" stuff that has been going on for the past 8 years. change from the divisive "the other guy isnt just wrong he is evil" bullshit that permeates congress.Every presidential candidate promised this.
Did Obama supporters pick his name out of a hat randomly?
How is the change that Obama promised different than the change the others promised?

it was never a promise to put in people who dont know anything about the job they are being tapped for.Nor should it have been. Are you suggesting that only Washington insiders know anything about the economy, foreign policy, etc.?

From the same people that have been running things

Has Obama been running things? No? So there's a change right there.

, for a whole lot longer than eight years.
Obama had some credibility to accomplish this because he hadn't been in Washington that long, and therefore is less likely to have become corrupted by the process.
His cabinet picks, however? Not so much.

Does the cabinet make the executive decisions? No?

Has Obama been running things? No? So there's a change right there.An argument that could easily be made if you inserted Hillary or McCain's name there.

Does the cabinet make the executive decisions? No?Is there reason to expect them to perform in their jobs differently than they have before? If yes, then their experience doesn't matter because they could just carry out Obama's orders. If their experience does matter, then it is because it would influence their decisions.

An argument that could easily be made if you inserted Hillary or McCain's name there.

Yes indeed. Because "change" when not qualified can mean anything. That's why it's not exactly a campaign promise, and why his candidate picks don't mean he's reneging on one. Why essentially you're holding him to your own, ridiculous standard of what "change" means, such that if you dislike his cabinet picks its ZOMG POLITICS AS USUAL OBAMA SUCKS.

Is there reason to expect them to perform in their jobs differently than they have before?

For one, it's not the same jobs they had before.

If yes, then their experience doesn't matter because they could just carry out Obama's orders. If their experience does matter, then it is because it would influence their decisions.

Do you know what the cabinet does?

An argument that could easily be made if you inserted Hillary or McCain's name there.

Is there reason to expect them to perform in their jobs differently than they have before? If yes, then their experience doesn't matter because they could just carry out Obama's orders. If their experience does matter, then it is because it would influence their decisions.
gee im sorry if you read far more into obama's campaign than was there.

thats your problem not ours.

Yes indeed. Because "change" when not qualified can mean anything. That's why it's not exactly a campaign promise, and why his candidate picks don't mean he's reneging on one. Why essentially you're holding him to your own, ridiculous standard of what "change" means, such that if you dislike his cabinet picks its ZOMG POLITICS AS USUAL OBAMA SUCKS.So what you're saying is that even if he carried out the exact same policies as his predecessor, he's still changing things by being the new president because he never qualified what 'change' meant?

For one, it's not the same jobs they had before.So it's a reasonable expectation that if someone performed not so well in one job that they should be promoted and they'll perform better?

Do you know what the cabinet does?Depends on the specific cabinet position.

gee im sorry if you read far more into obama's campaign than was there.

thats your problem not ours.Meh. I didn't vote for him.
The idea that I should because he wasn't just the lesser of two evils was compelling for a bit, though.

So what you're saying is that even if he carried out the exact same policies as his predecessor, he's still changing things by being the new president because he never qualified what 'change' meant?


Except, he's not.

You know that old saying? Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer. The rationale behind it is that you can keep a closer eye on your opponents and limit the damage they can do as opposed to if they were running free. How do you know he's not doing that?

So what you're saying is that even if he carried out the exact same policies as his predecessor, he's still changing things by being the new president because he never qualified what 'change' meant?

You're all over the map. You agreed he's NOT carrying out the exact same policies as before. Democrats have been in power exactly once in the political lifetime of most of us. At that time we had a fairly divisive President (thus the Bush claim of being a uniter not a divider).

The change he was promising was an effort to put partisanship aside and to move us away from special interests. He was fairly specific on that claim. He never claimed that he would not rely on some of the same people. He said the exact opposite. Not only are you making up your own definition of change, but you're ignoring all of the claims made by the actual person you're trying to hold to your made up definition.


So it's a reasonable expectation that if someone performed not so well in one job that they should be promoted and they'll perform better?

Actually, yes, it is. Generally, it's expected that people become more valuable with experience. Oftentimes, I find an employee is completely useless under one form of management and extremely useful under another. It takes a good manager to put their experience to proper use. All evidence thus far suggests Obama is doing that.

Depends on the specific cabinet position.

Meh. I didn't vote for him.
The idea that I should because he wasn't just the lesser of two evils was compelling for a bit, though.

Yep, right up until you decided to focus on a slogan rather than a platform.

See, you don't seem to recognize how important it is to change the top dog in a corporation, but I'm going to have to chalk that up to a lack of experience. Most people who have been working for very long have seen such a change, with no other relevant changes in personnel make a dramatic difference.

I worked a restaurant that went from the most successful in town to out of business in a year. What changed? The GM and only the GM.

The guy in charge is *gasp* the guy in charge. Unsurprisingly, he sets policy.

One does expect the concept of change to be dependent on at least a significant portion of new faces in the cabinet, yes.

Then isn't that your problem and not his? Can you point to any specific case where he said he would avoid people with industry knowledge when looking for particular positions?

Except, he's not.

You know that old saying? Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer. The rationale behind it is that you can keep a closer eye on your opponents and limit the damage they can do as opposed to if they were running free. How do you know he's not doing that?So we should assume that his former Senate colleagues are his enemies?

You're all over the map. You agreed he's NOT carrying out the exact same policies as before.Yes.
However, Trostia's argument appeared to be that a change in leader is enough of a change to satisfy the campaign rhetoric of change. I figured I'd put that argument to the test.

The change he was promising was an effort to put partisanship aside and to move us away from special interests. He was fairly specific on that claim.Didn't all of the other candidates also promise to put partisanship aside and move us away from special interests?

He never claimed that he would not rely on some of the same people. He said the exact opposite. Not only are you making up your own definition of change, but you're ignoring all of the claims made by the actual person you're trying to hold to your made up definition.Yes, because I'm trying to find a definition that actually makes him distinguishable from anybody else.

Actually, yes, it is. Generally, it's expected that people become more valuable with experience. Oftentimes, I find an employee is completely useless under one form of management and extremely useful under another. It takes a good manager to put their experience to proper use.Ever find an employee that's mediocre under multiple forms of management?

The guy in charge is *gasp* the guy in charge. Unsurprisingly, he sets policy.Yes, and the various cabinet members carry it out. Unsurprisingly, they often have a lot of discretion in doing so.

Then isn't that your problem and not his? Can you point to any specific case where he said he would avoid people with industry knowledge when looking for particular positions?I'm not asking him to avoid people with industry knowledge.
I'm saying that one would expect that he would find people with industry knowledge outside of Washington.
He picked Bill Richardson, and while Richardson is known nationally for being a former Presidential candidate, most of his experience was as a governor. One assumes that Richardson did not gain his qualifications for his cabinet position from being on the campaign trail, and instead that his governorship provided the bulk of his relevant experience. Is Richardson the only person outside of Washington who's qualified for a cabinet position?

So we should assume that his former Senate colleagues are his enemies?

No they're his court jesters. Give the man a break. He isn't in a position to do anything but pick his circle of advisers. At the very least, they'll give him a direct handle on the sort of thinking in the various ideologies rather than having to get them second hand from hands-in-the-air panic mongers and doomsayers like you. More than that, it won't disenfranchise the people who apply to the ideologies of his advisers. Obama promised to cross the lines to work with everyone and it seems to be the case here.

Wait until he's in office and see what he does with them and his decisions before you proclaim him a fraud. Most of us gave Bush a fair go and saw the screwing up he did before we brought up the tar and feathers.

If you want to declare the man a failure without qualification, well, that only speaks of your character.

No one should be upset that Obama's picks have been based on competence instead of ideology or cronyism. The Economist suggests that he might take flak from the left for taking such a moderate tact, but any such dissatisfaction has not shown itself in polls.

One does expect the concept of change to be dependent on at least a significant portion of new faces in the cabinet, yes.Too bad Obama gave you the wrong impression, but he was actually talking about policy changes, not about burning down Washington and rebuilding it on the moon.

So what you're saying is that even if he carried out the exact same policies as his predecessor, he's still changing things by being the new president because he never qualified what 'change' meant?

I'm saying you are holding an unreasonable standard of what he meant by 'change' by applying it literally to every thing he does. I'm saying he isn't carrying out policies at all yet, and yet you're already acting as if he is.

So it's a reasonable expectation that if someone performed not so well in one job that they should be promoted and they'll perform better?

I'm saying you can't judge a 3rd edition book by its 2nd edition cover. And judging either one by the cover is a bit premature too.

Depends on the specific cabinet position.

Well, the point is he's the one who formulates policy and in general, represents the US to the rest of the world. Not the cabinet.

How influential or strong the cabinet is depends on the influence and strength of the president. I don't think they're exactly going to walk all over him. But it's far too early to judge these things.

No they're his court jesters. Give the man a break. He isn't in a position to do anything but pick his circle of advisers. At the very least, they'll give him a direct handle on the sort of thinking in the various ideologies rather than having to get them second hand from hands-in-the-air panic mongers and doomsayers like you. More than that, it won't disenfranchise the people who apply to the ideologies of his advisers. Obama promised to cross the lines to work with everyone and it seems to be the case here.Various ideologies? Well, I suppose it could be argued that he picked people from 2 or 3 of the mainstream ideologies.

If you want to declare the man a failure without qualification, well, that only speaks of your character.A failure? No, I wouldn't say he's a failure.
He has a very high likelihood of producing a stable-middle of the road result.

No one should be upset that Obama's picks have been based on competence instead of ideology or cronyism.And nobody is upset that Obama's picks have been based on competence.

The Economist suggests that he might take flak from the left for taking such a moderate tact, but any such dissatisfaction has not shown itself in polls. One would assume he would take flak, but presumably 'the left' is not the group that makes up the bulk of his supporters.

Too bad Obama gave you the wrong impression, but he was actually talking about policy changes, not about burning down Washington and rebuilding it on the moon.And again, every candidate talked of policy changes.

I'm saying you are holding an unreasonable standard of what he meant by 'change' by applying it literally to every thing he does. I'm saying he isn't carrying out policies at all yet, and yet you're already acting as if he is. I'm saying that his cabinet picks are indicative of the policies that he intends to carry out.

I'm saying you can't judge a 3rd edition book by its 2nd edition cover. And judging either one by the cover is a bit premature too....
Editions of a book are the same book reprinted with a couple of (usually) minor alterations.
Is that really the analogy you wanted to make?

Well, the point is he's the one who formulates policy and in general, represents the US to the rest of the world. Not the cabinet.

How influential or strong the cabinet is depends on the influence and strength of the president. I don't think they're exactly going to walk all over him. But it's far too early to judge these things.Walk all over him? No, probably not.
One would expect that, however, they would have some leeway in putting forward their own ideas and ideology.

Yes.
However, Trostia's argument appeared to be that a change in leader is enough of a change to satisfy the campaign rhetoric of change. I figured I'd put that argument to the test.

But you're trying to hold each argument in a vacuum. There are a bunch of things going on here and the only challenges you offer require you divide them out and ignore the rest. He offers both a change of policy and a change of leadership while employing some of the best in the business. Not one of those things. Not two of those things. All of those things.

Didn't all of the other candidates also promise to put partisanship aside and move us away from special interests?

Actually, no. Some candidates tried unconvincingly to move to Obama's position when he started winning.

As far as both McCain and Clinton, both were demonstrably partisan in their recent behavior in the Senate and in their campaigns. McCain frequently used liberal as a bad word and has supported the failed policies of Bush (many of which he was against in his 2000 campaign and before) right down the line. Claiming to be bipartisan while having demonstrated a move to the outside doesn't work.


Yes, because I'm trying to find a definition that actually makes him distinguishable from anybody else.

The problem is that you're ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Yes, eventually every candidate realized that Obama had the right message. Both Clinton and McCain switched from being the experience candidates to the change candidates when they realized they were going to lose. However, they were both running on more of the same. Obama rightly acknowledged that there were problems in the Clinton years as well and that that people were tired of politics as usual. Who sets the attitude of the office? The President of course.

Ever find an employee that's mediocre under multiple forms of management?

The problem here is that these employees weren't and aren't. It's pretty much universally agreed that the majority of Obama's cabinet is the cream of the crop.


Yes, and the various cabinet members carry it out. Unsurprisingly, they often have a lot of discretion in doing so.

Of course they do, but the overall direction is set by the President. My employees aren't micromanaged, but I can assure that if anything they do doesn't jive with the company line, they'll change or they'll leave.

I'm not asking him to avoid people with industry knowledge.

Yes, you are, in fact, requiring him to stay away from people who know how to get things done in Washington.

I'm saying that one would expect that he would find people with industry knowledge outside of Washington.

How do people learn how to get things done in Washington by never having actually done so?

He picked Bill Richardson, and while Richardson is known nationally for being a former Presidential candidate, most of his experience was as a governor. One assumes that Richardson did not gain his qualifications for his cabinet position from being on the campaign trail, and instead that his governorship provided the bulk of his relevant experience. Is Richardson the only person outside of Washington who's qualified for a cabinet position?

Exactly. He picked several kinds of experience. Some from people who know how to get things done in various parts of Washington. Some from outside. He didn't specifically avoid any kind of experience and instead focused on get the very best for his goals. That is change. He didn't return political favors (in fact, recent events pointed out that he isn't willing to make those kinds of promises), but rather he chose people who in the long run would help him be successful.

I'm saying that his cabinet picks are indicative of the policies that he intends to carry out.

That's not what you were saying when I said you said what you were saying.

...
Editions of a book are the same book reprinted with a couple of (usually) minor alterations.
Is that really the analogy you wanted to make?

Also they're inanimate objects that can be bought and sold! That's the thing about analogies, they are not perfect, and you're avoiding the point.

Walk all over him? No, probably not.
One would expect that, however, they would have some leeway in putting forward their own ideas and ideology.

Which he is free to ignore or follow up on based on their merit.

He picked Bill Richardson, and while Richardson is known nationally for being a former Presidential candidate, most of his experience was as a governor. One assumes that Richardson did not gain his qualifications for his cabinet position from being on the campaign trail, and instead that his governorship provided the bulk of his relevant experience.
Bill Richardson has had an extensive career with vast experience in many fields. Secretary of Energy, ambassador to the UN, special envoy to Kim Jong-Il on the nuclear issue and to Slobodan Milosevic on the Bosnia issue are the jobs that I remember, but he has held others.

Various ideologies? Well, I suppose it could be argued that he picked people from 2 or 3 of the mainstream ideologies.

Ideologies of worth and are at least somewhat reasonable. The kind of people like New Mitanni who advocates treason and wants armed revolt just because a democrat won and considers anyone who don't think the way he does aren't "real" Americans can be stuffed into incinerators for all the worth they have.


A failure? No, I wouldn't say he's a failure.
He has a very high likelihood of producing a stable-middle of the road result.


Which is a lot different than the abject failure the current presidency has created. So why the complaints about "no change"?

And nobody is upset that Obama's picks have been based on competence. You're suggesting that appointing competent, moderate, non-ideologues belies his promises of change. And I'm saying these appointments increase his ability to successfully implement that change. Unlike in the Bush administration, his policies will be executed by competent people who will be willing to advise him but won't actively try to push their own agenda. And again, every candidate talked of policy changes.

You're comparing the general tenor of their campaign rhetoric, which is rather unrelated to their actual policies. David Axelrod came up with the "change" slogan because he thought it would resonate with the public. McCain ended up copying that theme. But Obama's actual policy positions represented a significant departure from the Bush administration, whereas McCain's did not.

Look at how the different candidates articulated their grand vision for American foreign policy last year in the Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/) journal.

John McCain:
Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership.

Mike Huckabee:
My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.

Rudy Giuliani:

We are all members of the 9/11 generation.

The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.


Barack Obama:
This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.

To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

Let's see if we can spot which one is different in character from the Bush administration.

But you're trying to hold each argument in a vacuum. There are a bunch of things going on here and the only challenges you offer require you divide them out and ignore the rest.Because the particular argument that I was addressing only addressed one of those things.

He offers both a change of policy and a change of leadership while employing some of the best in the business. Not one of those things. Not two of those things. All of those things.Are you saying that the other candidates didn't offer a change in policy or in leadership? Would they have employed people they believed to be incompetent?

Actually, no. Some candidates tried unconvincingly to move to Obama's position when he started winning.

As far as both McCain and Clinton, both were demonstrably partisan in their recent behavior in the Senate and in their campaigns. McCain frequently used liberal as a bad word and has supported the failed policies of Bush (many of which he was against in his 2000 campaign and before) right down the line. Claiming to be bipartisan while having demonstrated a move to the outside doesn't work.Certainly. Nonetheless, they all said that they wanted to reach across the aisle and get things done with the other party.

The problem is that you're ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Yes, eventually every candidate realized that Obama had the right message. Both Clinton and McCain switched from being the experience candidates to the change candidates when they realized they were going to lose.So then they did state that they would bring change.
Furthermore, the platforms that Clinton and Obama were running on were also very similar.

However, they were both running on more of the same. Obama rightly acknowledged that there were problems in the Clinton years as well and that that people were tired of politics as usual. Who sets the attitude of the office? The President of course.So Clinton, McCain, et al. were happy with politics as usual?

Did he believe the problems in the Clinton years were because of the working environment then, or from the policies enacted then? (or both)

The problem here is that these employees weren't and aren't. It's pretty much universally agreed that the majority of Obama's cabinet is the cream of the crop.I do not dispute this. I'm certain that they are very good at maintaining the status quo.

Of course they do, but the overall direction is set by the President. My employees aren't micromanaged, but I can assure that if anything they do doesn't jive with the company line, they'll change or they'll leave.Would you rather have an employee who agrees with the things you want from the company and wants your vision to be carried out, or an employee with equal experience who will fight against the things you want from the company?

Yes, you are, in fact, requiring him to stay away from people who know how to get things done in Washington. Incorrect. Washington insiders aren't the only people who have the experience to get things done in Washington.

How do people learn how to get things done in Washington by never having actually done so?By gaining similar experience in other areas and transferring that ability to Washington. The same way that people learn how to get things done in the first place.

Exactly. He picked several kinds of experience. Some from people who know how to get things done in various parts of Washington. Some from outside. He didn't specifically avoid any kind of experience and instead focused on get the very best for his goals. That is change. He didn't return political favors (in fact, recent events pointed out that he isn't willing to make those kinds of promises), but rather he chose people who in the long run would help him be successful.With the exception of the political favors part, I highly doubt that the other candidates would have chosen people with limited experience or who would not help them be successful.

That's not what you were saying when I said you said what you were saying.....what?

Also they're inanimate objects that can be bought and sold! That's the thing about analogies, they are not perfect, and you're avoiding the point.Not really. I think your analogy was fairly close.

Which he is free to ignore or follow up on based on their merit.Or undo, after the decisions have been carried out.

Bill Richardson has had an extensive career with vast experience in many fields. Secretary of Energy, ambassador to the UN, special envoy to Kim Jong-Il on the nuclear issue and to Slobodan Milosevic on the Bosnia issue are the jobs that I remember, but he has held others.Indeed. Is this type of thing rare outside of Washington?

Which is a lot different than the abject failure the current presidency has created. So why the complaints about "no change"?Because all of the candidates promised to do something different than the current president?
Because the policies of the current president aren't the only policies we've seen?

You're suggesting that appointing competent, moderate, non-ideologues belies his promises of change. And I'm saying these appointments increase his ability to successfully implement that change. Unlike in the Bush administration, his policies will be executed by competent people who will be willing to advise him but won't actively try to push their own agenda. I highly doubt Bush believed that his appointments would be as incompetent as they were.

You're comparing the general tenor of their campaign rhetoric, which is rather unrelated to their actual policies. David Axelrod came up with the "change" slogan because he thought it would resonate with the public. McCain ended up copying that theme. But Obama's actual policy positions represented a significant departure from the Bush administration, whereas McCain's did not.In the case of McCain's policies, you're probably right.
In the cae of the other Democrats? Not really.

Because the particular argument that I was addressing only addressed one of those things.

Exactly. You're seperating the arguments as if they are made in a vacuum. They all go together. It's called context.


Are you saying that the other candidates didn't offer a change in policy or in leadership? Would they have employed people they believed to be incompetent?

Given their behavior prior to the primaries, in the primaries and in the general, I'd say at least one of those three. Clinton was divisive and employed lots of incompetent people. That she was demonstrably bad at running a campaign where she was strongly the favorite is unquestionable. McCain wasn't changing the ways Americans were looking for, also struggled to lead a campaign and also employed incompetent people.

Certainly. Nonetheless, they all said that they wanted to reach across the aisle and get things done with the other party.

They also said they were all the change candidate as well. Obviously, it was something else about Barack Obama that made his claims resonate. People are trying to explain that to you, but rather than drink in what really occurred you keep arguing to a fantasy and keep looking at arguments in a vacuum in order to keep your fantasy going.

So then they did state that they would bring change.

Again, stating something while doing the opposite offers nothing. No one is claiming the other candidates didn't try to steal Obama's message.

Furthermore, the platforms that Clinton and Obama were running on were also very similar.

They certainly were, which would be relevant if you hadn't read all of the reasons people supported Obama


So Clinton, McCain, et al. were happy with politics as usual?

Yes, demonstrably so. In all of the significant ways, they demonstrated they were all about politics as usual. It's tiresome that we have to keep explaining that this is not just about what they said. Clinton got terribly mad when someone she'd done favors for supported Obama. She was pissed that she'd scratched someone's back without them helping her into the Presidency. There are dozens of examples of this.


Did he believe the problems in the Clinton years were because of the working environment then, or from the policies enacted then? (or both)

It was from both. They created a famously divisive environment. They led an attack on the conservatives in this country that led to a conservative rebirth (that led to conservatives taking over congress in the late 90s). They engaged in several policies that Clinton herself said to be changed. Remember that she campaigned while saying she would change NAFTA.


I do not dispute this. I'm certain that they are very good at maintaining the status quo.

Would you rather have an employee who agrees with the things you want from the company and wants your vision to be carried out, or an employee with equal experience who will fight against the things you want from the company?,

I would rather have an employee who will tell me what s/he thinks, offer me the benefit of his/her experience, and then allow me to decide whether to follow their way or my way. Fortunately, that's exactly what kind of people he hired.


Incorrect. Washington insiders aren't the only people who have the experience to get things done in Washington.

I think you don't know what Washington insider means.


By gaining similar experience in other areas and transferring that ability to Washington. The same way that people learn how to get things done in the first place.[/QUOTE]

There are other valuable experiences, which is why he didn't ONLY hire Washington insiders.


With the exception of the political favors part, I highly doubt that the other candidates would have chosen people with limited experience or who would not help them be successful.

Why not? They did during their campaigns. Some of their players were highly incompetent. Are we supposed to ignore what they've actually done because it hurts your argument?

....what?

Not really. I think your analogy was fairly close.

Of course you do. Otherwise, you'd have to make a rational argument. Instead, you get to avoid it by focusing on irrelevant parts of an analogy. Why don't you talk about the relevance of the typeface next?

Or undo, after the decisions have been carried out.

Indeed. Is this type of thing rare outside of Washington?

No, but it's not the only type of experience necessary. What's funny is that for some reason, you're holding him up to some promise he didn't make, to do something that you've not demonstrated is necessary, because of things you've waffled on as a complaint.

Because all of the candidates promised to do something different than the current president?
Because the policies of the current president aren't the only policies we've seen?
While demonstrating that they don't necessarily do that in practice. Clinton never said she was wrong to vote to give war powers to the President rather than follow the powers as laid out in the Constitution. She supported the march to war and, for the most part, demonstrated a similar hawkishness and similar policies in regards to war. McCain supported nearly all of the policies of the current administration.

First and foremost, people wanted to get away from the policies of Bush, particularly in regards to handling terrorism and the centralization of power in the Presidency. Both Clinton and Bush did not represent a strong enough shift away from this for most people.


I highly doubt Bush believed that his appointments would be as incompetent as they were.

Which is irrelevant. It's likely both Clinton and McCain thought their campaign staffs would be so incompetent, but they were. Obama has demonstrated his leadership and his ability to choose good people not just with an excellent career but also by running a stunningly solid campaign. His leadership and the competence of his team was evident throughout.


In the case of McCain's policies, you're probably right.
In the cae of the other Democrats? Not really.

Like most of your arguments, this is just another claim that you not only don't offer evidence for, but will likely abandon like old trash when challenged. That's why I said you're all over the map.

If you got an actual supportable claim against Obama, make it. Right now, you're flipping around searching for one.

Alright, Jello, quit jiggling and state your claim clearly.

I claim I selected Obama because he proved he was a good leader, who could select excellent people to carry out his goals, that he had his finger on the pulse of the people, that he represented a change from anything goes politics, and he had the policies that I like.

Choose another candidate you think would have made a better choice for me? You've claimed repeatedly that such things are vague, so such a request should be easy. Thus far, you pick different candidates for different issues. Pick ONE candidate that embodies ALL of the reasons I or most people voted for Obama. Go ahead.

Exactly. You're seperating the arguments as if they are made in a vacuum. They all go together. It's called context.The particular argument I was addressing was made in a vacuum and didn't go together with anything else.

Given their behavior prior to the primaries, in the primaries and in the general, I'd say at least one of those three. Clinton was divisive and employed lots of incompetent people. That she was demonstrably bad at running a campaign where she was strongly the favorite is unquestionable. McCain wasn't changing the ways Americans were looking for, also struggled to lead a campaign and also employed incompetent people.So is it your argument that employing incompetent people is something that occurs regularly in Washington?

They also said they were all the change candidate as well. Obviously, it was something else about Barack Obama that made his claims resonate. People are trying to explain that to you, but rather than drink in what really occurred you keep arguing to a fantasy and keep looking at arguments in a vacuum in order to keep your fantasy going.Because until the previous paragraph, nobody has offered anything concrete that distinguishes Obama's change from the platforms of most of the other candidates.

Again, stating something while doing the opposite offers nothing. No one is claiming the other candidates didn't try to steal Obama's message.

They certainly were, which would be relevant if you hadn't read all of the reasons people supported ObamaBecause the reasons given to support Obama also applied to other candidates.

Yes, demonstrably so. In all of the significant ways, they demonstrated they were all about politics as usual. It's tiresome that we have to keep explaining that this is not just about what they said. Clinton got terribly mad when someone she'd done favors for supported Obama. She was pissed that she'd scratched someone's back without them helping her into the Presidency. There are dozens of examples of this.Certainly. Saying one thing and doing another isn't anything new. Nonetheless, Obama also said some things initially and did things contrary to what he said.

It was from both. They created a famously divisive environment. They led an attack on the conservatives in this country that led to a conservative rebirth (that led to conservatives taking over congress in the late 90s). They engaged in several policies that Clinton herself said to be changed. Remember that she campaigned while saying she would change NAFTA.So are the reasons people supported Obama because you believe he would lead to a change in environment, or a change in policies?
(Of course, you can't answer for 'people', but you can answer for yourself.)

I would rather have an employee who will tell me what s/he thinks, offer me the benefit of his/her experience, and then allow me to decide whether to follow their way or my way. Fortunately, that's exactly what kind of people he hired.I think you're underestimating the amount of power people have whenever they have discretional authority.

I think you don't know what Washington insider means.

There are other valuable experiences, which is why he didn't ONLY hire Washington insiders.Of the ones listed in the OP, pretty much only Richardson is from outside of Washington.

Why not? They did during their campaigns. Some of their players were highly incompetent. Are we supposed to ignore what they've actually done because it hurts your argument?No, but if this is a major reason that you had for supporting Obama, you should bring it up instead of reasons that apply to the other candidates.

Of course you do. Otherwise, you'd have to make a rational argument. Instead, you get to avoid it by focusing on irrelevant parts of an analogy. Why don't you talk about the relevance of the typeface next?The analogy has hardly been my focus.
Nonetheless, I am not judging a book by its cover, I am judging it by its abstract.

No, but it's not the only type of experience necessary. What's funny is that for some reason, you're holding him up to some promise he didn't make, to do something that you've not demonstrated is necessary, because of things you've waffled on as a complaint.I'm not saying that he promised to not hire Washington insiders, or that it is necessary to not do so.
I am saying that the hiring of Washington insiders is not representative of change, and is a major indicator of the direction he intends to take.

While demonstrating that they don't necessarily do that in practice. Clinton never said she was wrong to vote to give war powers to the President rather than follow the powers as laid out in the Constitution. She supported the march to war and, for the most part, demonstrated a similar hawkishness and similar policies in regards to war. McCain supported nearly all of the policies of the current administration.It is true that Clinton was quite hawkish. It seems odd that Obama wants her to be his Secretary of State.

First and foremost, people wanted to get away from the policies of Bush, particularly in regards to handling terrorism and the centralization of power in the Presidency. Both Clinton and Bush did not represent a strong enough shift away from this for most people.I have no doubt that this is what people wanted.
However, judging from the cabinet picks that Obama has chosen, it seems that what he will be giving is a throwback to the Clinton years. Is a rehash of that the change you really want?

Which is irrelevant. It's likely both Clinton and McCain thought their campaign staffs would be so incompetent, but they were. Obama has demonstrated his leadership and his ability to choose good people not just with an excellent career but also by running a stunningly solid campaign. His leadership and the competence of his team was evident throughout.I suppose the hiring of competent people is a change from most politicians. Is this the type of change Obama represented to people?

Like most of your arguments, this is just another claim that you not only don't offer evidence for, but will likely abandon like old trash when challenged. That's why I said you're all over the map.

If you got an actual supportable claim against Obama, make it. Right now, you're flipping around searching for one.Do you even know what my argument is?

Alright, Jello, quit jiggling and state your claim clearly.

I claim I selected Obama because he proved he was a good leader, who could select excellent people to carry out his goals, that he had his finger on the pulse of the people, that he represented a change from anything goes politics, and he had the policies that I like.

Choose another candidate you think would have made a better choice for me? You've claimed repeatedly that such things are vague, so such a request should be easy. Thus far, you pick different candidates for different issues. Pick ONE candidate that embodies ALL of the reasons I or most people voted for Obama. Go ahead.So the specific type of change that you wanted was a change from 'anything goes' politics? I suppose that qualifies as a change. If that's sufficient for you, then fine.

I was under the impression, however, that Obama was intending to bring policy change. Not merely change from the policies of the Bush administration, or slight tweaks of existing policies, but things that haven't been done before. It's still possible that he may, but judging from his cabinet picks, it is less likely.

What do you think about the up and coming Obama administration?

Although I do not like Obama and did not vote for him I am very happy to see that he is moving more toward the center. I wish him and his administration the best and hope they do well.

So the specific type of change that you wanted was a change from 'anything goes' politics? I suppose that qualifies as a change. If that's sufficient for you, then fine.

I was under the impression, however, that Obama was intending to bring policy change. Not merely change from the policies of the Bush administration, or slight tweaks of existing policies, but things that haven't been done before. It's still possible that he may, but judging from his cabinet picks, it is less likely.

Stop jiggling, Jello.

Every time someone gives you an argument for Obama, you CLAIM it could equally be said about other candidates. When asked to actually present a candidate you ONCE AGAIN ignored as many of the arguments as you could and selected one to focus on.

Tell me, what candidate would have embodied all of the reasons that people voted for Obama, other than Obama? My guess is you're full of shit and you don't actually have a rational argument that someone else actually represents those things.

As far as the "change" argument, we didn't vote for Obama solely on change so stop trying to make it about that solely. It was an overall change of leadership that was expected. We sought a better leader, someone who seeks out the best, not yes men, someone who looks at arguments rather than silly things like guilt by association or whether someone's daughter is pregnant, someone who demonstrates that they keep themselves and their teams on task and focused. Obama did all of those things and Bush none of them. The candidates he ran against were a hodge podge of those things.

He is the only one that was all of those things and trying to analyze each thing seperately like he was chosen for any of them seperately is an intentional avoidance of the actual argument.

EDIT: I'll even let you tell us what reasons others have given and tell us which candidate that applies to. You said the reasons others have given applies to other candidates. Which candidates?

Nonetheless, I am not judging a book by its cover, I am judging it by its abstract.

Change you can believe in was the title, not the abstract. You're not even judging the book by it's entire cover and when people try to get you to look at the abstract you patently refuse to address the whole thing. Instead you address it line by line and act like all the other lines don't exist.

Every time someone gives you an argument for Obama, you CLAIM it could equally be said about other candidates. When asked to actually present a candidate you ONCE AGAIN ignored as many of the arguments as you could and selected one to focus on.You stated that you picked Obama because he represented 'policies you like'. Which policies specifically?
I ask because most of the arguments have essentially boiled down to his policies would be different from the Bush administraiton's policies. But not too different, such as policies Nader or Cynthia McKinney would enact, but the right amount of difference. However much that difference is, I have no idea.
Nonetheless, you are correct that not all of the arguments have said that. Ashmoria gave concrete reasons she liked Obama.
She said "it was a promise to institue health care reform, to end the war in iraq, to do what needs to be done to stabilize afghanistan, to focus on the middle class instead of the rich, to make smart decisions that are good for the country, to have the government do its job again."
Hillary Clinton also presented a plan to institude health care reform. It could be that people didn't like her plan, but nonetheless she presented one. She also said she would end the war in Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan (though I'm not sure she used the word 'stabilize' specifically), and everyone I'm sure is already familiar with the Clintons' rhetoric on the middle class. I'm sure Clinton said she'd make good decisions and have the government do its job, though you are correct that based on her past record that people should be skeptical of this.

Tell me, what candidate would have embodied all of the reasons that people voted for Obama, other than Obama? My guess is you're full of shit and you don't actually have a rational argument that someone else actually represents those things.

[quote]As far as the "change" argument, we didn't vote for Obama solely on change so stop trying to make it about that solely.My criticism of Obama was solely about change. Why would I stop making it solely about change when change is solely what my criticism is based on?

(I snipped the rest of this because I believe I addressed it above, but if you don't feel I have, go ahead and point it out.)

Change you can believe in was the title, not the abstract. You're not even judging the book by it's entire cover and when people try to get you to look at the abstract you patently refuse to address the whole thing. Instead you address it line by line and act like all the other lines don't exist.I'm referring to the cabinet when I say the abstract, and comparing the abstract to what the title says.

Because all of the candidates promised to do something different than the current president?


And what exactly is the grounds for complaint then? That he's got people from all across the place picked for his advisers? That's far different from the usual politics of marginalizing the loser's party wholesale.

Or merely that the others talked about change but didn't walk the talk? McCain may have made lots of pretty noises about change, but he didn't even make a single step towards being different from the man he supposedly would replace. And might I remind you his party made a lot of rhetoric about how only a "Real American" would vote for him?

And Clinton's record is hardly any better. She also talked a lot about how she would opposed the Republicans. People have eyes you know.

The competition clearly showed that they weren't interested in working together with the opposition if they won. Obama not only talked it, he walked it.

You may not be claiming "failure" but you're already willing to write off the man as one before he can do anything. If that's so set in your head, there's little point in your continuing in this thread, since you are willing to make proclamations without evidence.

He's surrounding himself with intelligent people, often without regard to their personal ideologies, and I personally thought it was quite touching that he brought General Shinseki out of the cold to serve as the Director of Veterans Affairs after his sham of a retirement ceremony.

No, I always knew he was a fraud

You stated that you picked Obama because he represented 'policies you like'. Which policies specifically?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Hillary Clinton also presented a plan to institude health care reform. It could be that people didn't like her plan, but nonetheless she presented one. She also said she would end the war in Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan (though I'm not sure she used the word 'stabilize' specifically), and everyone I'm sure is already familiar with the Clintons' rhetoric on the middle class. I'm sure Clinton said she'd make good decisions and have the government do its job, though you are correct that based on her past record that people should be skeptical of this.Yes, Hillary Clinton's stated policy positions were similar to Obama's. I voted against her in the primaries based on her record and the nature of her campaign, which even then was clearly full of rancor, backbiting, and incompetent hacks like Mark Penn.

And what exactly is the grounds for complaint then? That he's got people from all across the place picked for his advisers? That's far different from the usual politics of marginalizing the loser's party wholesale.Sort of. For instance, Clinton kept Bush I's (and Reagan's) Federal Reserve Chairman in.
With that said, I don't necessarily object to bringing in people from other parties, even if it's the Republican Party.

Or merely that the others talked about change but didn't walk the talk? McCain may have made lots of pretty noises about change, but he didn't even make a single step towards being different from the man he supposedly would replace. And might I remind you his party made a lot of rhetoric about how only a "Real American" would vote for him?

And Clinton's record is hardly any better. She also talked a lot about how she would opposed the Republicans. People have eyes you know.

The competition clearly showed that they weren't interested in working together with the opposition if they won. Obama not only talked it, he walked it.While it is true that McCain and Clinton were more divisive than they might have claimed they were, they were hardly the only people running.
I have been focusing my attention on them because they are the ones that people know more, but to bring a new person up, how about John Edwards. Was he too divisive for you?

You may not be claiming "failure" but you're already willing to write off the man as one before he can do anything. If that's so set in your head, there's little point in your continuing in this thread, since you are willing to make proclamations without evidence.The evidence is in his cabinet choices. It is true that he hasn't had the chance to make any change. The choices he made in his cabinet indicate that he intends to do things we've seen before, or things very close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/You liked all of his positions?
That's a lot to sift through. I suppose I could, but it would make the thread a lot easier to read if you picked the few that you liked the best.

Yes, Hillary Clinton's stated policy positions were similar to Obama's. I voted against her in the primaries based on her record and the nature of her campaign, which even then was clearly full of rancor, backbiting, and incompetent hacks like Mark Penn.Fair enough. I didn't vote for her either.

Sort of. For instance, Clinton kept Bush I's (and Reagan's) Federal Reserve Chairman in.
With that said, I don't necessarily object to bringing in people from other parties, even if it's the Republican Party.

Then why are you complaining as if it meant anything?


I have been focusing my attention on them because they are the ones that people know more, but to bring a new person up, how about John Edwards. Was he too divisive for you?

Are you referring to this election? If so, he didn't have any significant public awareness, and thereby, any real chance of winning.


The evidence is in his cabinet choices. It is true that he hasn't had the chance to make any change. The choices he made in his cabinet indicate that he intends to do things we've seen before, or things very close to it.


Yes, Obama intends to breathe, eat, sleep and the usual sorts of things that involve continued existence. His cabinet picks don't tell anything other than the criteria he's picking them for, and so far, it's competency. They're too varied in ideology for any combination of them to be even called the same old.

But it seems that you don't intend to see what he will do to begin with, and will go with the write off instead.

You liked all of his positions?
That's a lot to sift through. I suppose I could, but it would make the thread a lot easier to read if you picked the few that you liked the best.

I tend to look at things holistically. I like most of his foreign policy positions, and his economic positions with the exception of some of his anti-trade rhetoric. I also think energy policy is important, but that was one of the issues where McCain was relatively progressive, and I don't care for corn-based ethanol.

"Change" is relative. Given that the Republican party has been seized by rightist radicals, Obama's moderation is itself a change.

Then why are you complaining as if it meant anything?I'm not complaining that he made bipartisan decisions.

Are you referring to this election? If so, he didn't have any significant public awareness, and thereby, any real chance of winning.Yes, this election.
You are correct that he didn't have a chance of winning, but one would assume that if one liked his policies one would support him anyway.

His cabinet picks don't tell anything other than the criteria he's picking them for, and so far, it's competency. They're too varied in ideology for any combination of them to be even called the same old.The 'same old' isn't just a single ideology. It's a few very similar ideologies.

But it seems that you don't intend to see what he will do to begin with, and will go with the write off instead.I am willing to be pleasantly surprised, and will revise my opinion accordingly should that happen. I won't be holding my breath, though.

I tend to look at things holistically. I like most of his foreign policy positions, and his economic positions with the exception of some of his anti-trade rhetoric. I also think energy policy is important, but that was one of the issues where McCain was relatively progressive, and I don't care for corn-based ethanol. So by his economic positions do you mean things like the tax cuts for the middle class, or the stimulus package paid for by windfall oil profits, or those things and more?

"Change" is relative. Given that the Republican party has been seized by rightist radicals, Obama's moderation is itself a change.Change is relative, but it is relative to more events than the ones that have occurred during the past eight years.

So by his economic positions do you mean things like the tax cuts for the middle class, or the stimulus package paid for by windfall oil profits, or those things and more?I'm using the term broadly, to refer to all of his economic policies, including health care, taxes, etc.

Change is relative, but it is relative to more events than the ones that have occurred during the past eight years.Most certainly. And Obama represents a break from the Reagan paradigm of the past thirty years. Perhaps he is ideologically similar to Bill Clinton, but you must recognize that Clinton failed to effect that ideology in the form of policy. He at best stalled the advance of neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and Christianist social policy. Obama's victory is a symbolic repudiation of the Reagan revolution, which was preserved by Clinton and furthered by Bush II. He has the political capital and will to (unlike Bill Clinton) actually implement his policies and fundamentally alter the direction of the country.

The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008) website puts Obama fairly near the point of origin on their graph. It says that "Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative." But it's worth keeping in mind that since Reagan, the country has been run from the far upper-right part of that graph.

Are you disappointed about the way Obama has changed?
So he's corrupt centralist moving to corrupt centralist?

You stated that you picked Obama because he represented 'policies you like'. Which policies specifically?
I ask because most of the arguments have essentially boiled down to his policies would be different from the Bush administraiton's policies. But not too different, such as policies Nader or Cynthia McKinney would enact, but the right amount of difference. However much that difference is, I have no idea.
Nonetheless, you are correct that not all of the arguments have said that. Ashmoria gave concrete reasons she liked Obama.
She said "it was a promise to institue health care reform, to end the war in iraq, to do what needs to be done to stabilize afghanistan, to focus on the middle class instead of the rich, to make smart decisions that are good for the country, to have the government do its job again."
Hillary Clinton also presented a plan to institude health care reform. It could be that people didn't like her plan, but nonetheless she presented one. She also said she would end the war in Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan (though I'm not sure she used the word 'stabilize' specifically), and everyone I'm sure is already familiar with the Clintons' rhetoric on the middle class. I'm sure Clinton said she'd make good decisions and have the government do its job, though you are correct that based on her past record that people should be skeptical of this.


Great, so let's examine Hillary.

Iraq - Hillary voted to give war powers to the President. She still thinks that it was a good idea if it would have been the right President. It wasn't. Her position on Iraq has dramatically changed, no so coincidentally, to match that of the electorate.

Leadership - The people she hired were incompetent and unprepared. They didn't know the rules of the game they were supposed to be advising her on and yet chose to advise her before learning them. They were unprepared for any part of the primaries after Super Tuesday.

Divisiveness - Hillary Clinton supports the divisiveness of the 90's and beyond. "The states that matter" is no different than "the real America". Frankly, I've had enough of such things.

Racism - Hillary Clinton was totally willing to lean on racism in order to get to the White House.

Cronyism - Hillary Clinton got quite upset when people she'd done political favors for in the past chose to support the better candidate rather than her.

Obama

Iraq - Obama was right on Iraq and remains right on Iraq. His position was his position before it was the popular position.

Leadership - Obama's candidacy was a study in leadership. It was lauded as a tightly run ship with some of the most competent people he could find.

Divisiveness - Obama ran his campaign like it was part of his Presidency. He often chose not to take the low road because he knew he would have to work with many of these people after the election was over.

Racism - Obama generally chose to simply ignore implicit racism, rather than capitalizing on it.

Cronyism - Many of the people Obama chose were people who were not exactly favorable to him in the past. It's also on record that Obama refused to do the exchange of favors things.

My criticism of Obama was solely about change. Why would I stop making it solely about change when change is solely what my criticism is based on?
Because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. You keep pointing out that the other definitions of change could apply to another candidate. Even if one might, not all would.

(I snipped the rest of this because I believe I addressed it above, but if you don't feel I have, go ahead and point it out.)

I'm referring to the cabinet when I say the abstract, and comparing the abstract to what the title says.

Except it isn't. But I'll play.

Pick a member of the cabinet and suggest a person that would have better embodied the principles that Obama ran on. No more of the vague bullshit. Be explicit.

Great, so let's examine Hillary.

Iraq - Hillary voted to give war powers to the President. She still thinks that it was a good idea if it would have been the right President. It wasn't. Her position on Iraq has dramatically changed, no so coincidentally, to match that of the electorate.

Leadership - The people she hired were incompetent and unprepared. They didn't know the rules of the game they were supposed to be advising her on and yet chose to advise her before learning them. They were unprepared for any part of the primaries after Super Tuesday.

Divisiveness - Hillary Clinton supports the divisiveness of the 90's and beyond. "The states that matter" is no different than "the real America". Frankly, I've had enough of such things.

Racism - Hillary Clinton was totally willing to lean on racism in order to get to the White House.

Cronyism - Hillary Clinton got quite upset when people she'd done political favors for in the past chose to support the better candidate rather than her.

Obama

Iraq - Obama was right on Iraq and remains right on Iraq. His position was his position before it was the popular position.

Leadership - Obama's candidacy was a study in leadership. It was lauded as a tightly run ship with some of the most competent people he could find.

Divisiveness - Obama ran his campaign like it was part of his Presidency. He often chose not to take the low road because he knew he would have to work with many of these people after the election was over.

Racism - Obama generally chose to simply ignore implicit racism, rather than capitalizing on it.

Cronyism - Many of the people Obama chose were people who were not exactly favorable to him in the past. It's also on record that Obama refused to do the exchange of favors things.Do you believe that a change in leadership styles and a leader's personality frequently accompanies the changing of leaders?

Because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. You keep pointing out that the other definitions of change could apply to another candidate. Even if one might, not all would.Which is why I specified that I'm talking about policy change.

Except it isn't. But I'll play.

Pick a member of the cabinet and suggest a person that would have better embodied the principles that Obama ran on. No more of the vague bullshit. Be explicit.Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury, instead of Tim Geithner.

Do you believe that a change in leadership styles and a leader's personality frequently accompanies the changing of leaders?

Sometimes. Sometimes not. You keep avoiding the point.

Which is why I specified that I'm talking about policy change.

Actually, you flop all over the place. Just a sentence earlier you're talking about leadership.

regardless, policy change does not exist in a vacuum. Leadership, policy change, better politics, improving our standing in the world. That's the "change". There is of course more, but taking one of those things is not the same as addressing all of those things.

After all this time in the thread and your demonstrated inability to address all of the issues together, I'm lead to believe you cannot actual address the actually meaning of "change" but only some meaning you made up.

Paul Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury, instead of Tim Geithner.

I'll reword since be explicit doesn't actually mean give a complete answer to you. What is it about Paul Krugman that embodies Obama's promises better than Tim Geithner?

No, he didn't. I'm pretty sure he didn't start believing the war was worthwhile, or that it should have been fought.

Obama has no intention (http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13891) of getting us out of Iraq. He never did. Like all whores - erm, politicians - he said what he felt people wanted him to say, and as soon as he was safely elected, he backstabbed them in the back. Hell, the bastard hasn't even taken office yet, and already he's spat in the face of the well-intended but misguided people who elected him under the baseless assumption that he was antiwar.

Obama has no intention (http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13891) of getting us out of Iraq. He never did. Like all whores - erm, politicians - he said what he felt people wanted him to say, and as soon as he was safely elected, he backstabbed them in the back. Hell, the bastard hasn't even taken office yet, and already he's spat in the face of the well-intended but misguided people who elected him under the baseless assumption that he was antiwar.

It's not Obama's fault if you couldn't be bothered to actually read his policy positions. His stated position has always been and still is to have a time horizon for a gradual draw down of troops from Iraq.

It's not Obama's fault if you couldn't be bothered to actually read his policy positions. His stated position has always been and still is to have a time horizon for a gradual draw down of troops from Iraq.

Click the link.

I'm not disappointed with it... if anything he's sticking to his campaign promises thus far which is very rare.

I propose we suspend all of this "OMG No campaign promises met!" until 2.20.09 (or 20.2.09).

I mean, honestly... Next, I'm going to hear how he hasn't begun to implement his tax plan under the "office" of the President-Elect.

Click the link.

Wonderful article. It takes common knowledge and presents it as a hysterical rant with spelling errors, logical fallacies, and conspiracy-theory overtones. If you didn't bother to find out that Obama's plan includes no permanent bases, but does include a residual force, then you have no grounds to be suddenly angry and call Obama a whore.

For your edification: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.That has been on his website since the start of the campaign. It's not his fault that you and your fellow travelers assumed whatever you wanted about his positions and didn't bother to get the facts.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. You keep avoiding the point. Not at all, it is the point.
In your comparison between Obama and Hillary, 4 of the 5 things you mentioned dealt with the personalities of the two of them. Change in a leader's personality falls under the 'change of leader' heading. To specify a change in personality as the change that has occurred is as meaningful as to say a change in leadership has occurred.

regardless, policy change does not exist in a vacuum. Leadership, policy change, better politics, improving our standing in the world. That's the "change". There is of course more, but taking one of those things is not the same as addressing all of those things.I'm not intending to address all of those things. I don't really care about the others.

What is it about Paul Krugman that embodies Obama's promises better than Tim Geithner?Obama didn't promise any significant policy changes (that weren't also promised by the other candidates). It was absurd for him to emphasize change the way he did at all.

Not at all, it is the point.
In your comparison between Obama and Hillary, 4 of the 5 things you mentioned dealt with the personalities of the two of them. Change in a leader's personality falls under the 'change of leader' heading. To specify a change in personality as the change that has occurred is as meaningful as to say a change in leadership has occurred.

Only if you don't understand the difference between actions and personality. I'm talking about their actual behaviors. That might be controlled by their personality, but racism isn't personality.

We're talking about a change in the way they conduct business. By the way you're redefining the terms, we could just as easily say that the way people view the US is based on personality, even though it's really about policy, that the problem with torture is about personality, but it's really about policy, that all of the problems with Bush are about personality, but they aren't.

I'm not intending to address all of those things. I don't really care about the others.

You don't get to define the debate just because if you deal in reality, you lose. I'm certain you'd like to focus the debate to the point that argument has merit, but that's not how it works. Your argument does not have merit, because we are going to consider everything relevant.

Obama didn't promise any significant policy changes (that weren't also promised by the other candidates). It was absurd for him to emphasize change the way he did at all.

Certainly, so long as you ignore everything else, which you've openly admitted you want to do. You're pretty much nailed her. You've boiled your argument down to "But... but... I don't want to consider anything that harms my argument".

In fact, when challenged you can't even answer a simple question. Again - what is it about Paul Krugman that embodies Obama's promises better than Tim Geithner? You've said his selections do not support his claim of a different type of politics, of a change, and when asked who would have demonstrated this better, you gave an example of Krugman. Explain or admit you cannot.

Only if you don't understand the difference between actions and personality. I'm talking about their actual behaviors. That might be controlled by their personality, but racism isn't personality.Racism doesn't equal personality, no, but it can be a personality trait.
Actions based on personality are not the same as personality, but with a change in personalities, one would expect a change in those types of actions.

We're talking about a change in the way they conduct business.Which is to be expected with a change of leaders.

By the way you're redefining the terms, we could just as easily say that the way people view the US is based on personality, even though it's really about policy, that the problem with torture is about personality, but it's really about policy, that all of the problems with Bush are about personality, but they aren't.It's true, those things are about policy, and not personality. It's entirely possible for a president to conduct business in a different way than Bush does and come up with the same policy, or to conduct business in the exact same way that Bush did and come up with different policy. Correlation between the way Bush conducted business and his policy is not causation.

You don't get to define the debate just because if you deal in reality, you lose. I'm certain you'd like to focus the debate to the point that argument has merit, but that's not how it works. Your argument does not have merit, because we are going to consider everything relevant.Policy change is the only thing that's relevant. You're bringing in irrelevancies.
If people had said "I voted for Obama because I like the way he will conduct business", I would not be arguing with them. The same goes for "I don't want a divisive president", and most of the other arguments presented. I agree, Obama will conduct business in more positive way than his predecessors have. He will likely be less divisive than them. It is the placing of these things under 'change' that I was arguing against.

In fact, when challenged you can't even answer a simple question. Again - what is it about Paul Krugman that embodies Obama's promises better than Tim Geithner? You've said his selections do not support his claim of a different type of politics, of a change, and when asked who would have demonstrated this better, you gave an example of Krugman. Explain or admit you cannot.I did not say his selections do not support his claim of a different type of politics. I said they do not support his claim of change. His claim of a different type of politics would fit under the heading of "change", but would have as much meaning as to say that he's bringing change just by being a different leader.
There's no way for me to pick somebody who would bring major policy change, because he did not promise major policy change (again, that other candidates did not).

Racism doesn't equal personality, no, but it can be a personality trait.

Sure, like being a teacher is a personality trait. (Hint: it isn't)

Actions based on personality are not the same as personality, but with a change in personalities, one would expect a change in those types of actions.

You're missing the point. You could trace anything back to personality if you like. You've just simplified to the point of absurdity. Everything is based on personality the way you've defined it.

Which is to be expected with a change of leaders.

No, it isn't. That's the point. Again, your argument relies on ignoring everything that debunks it. You've admitted to all kinds of change, but basically said that every change doesn't count because you don't want it to. He wasn't talking about him being the only possible way to change the Presidency. Otherwise, we'd have voted for a chipmunk. He was very specific about what change he was offering. You've chosen to ignore all the evidence for your rather numbing rant about how it's not change unless you say it is.

It's true, those things are about policy, and not personality. It's entirely possible for a president to conduct business in a different way than Bush does and come up with the same policy, or to conduct business in the exact same way that Bush did and come up with different policy. Correlation between the way Bush conducted business and his policy is not causation.

Policy change is the only thing that's relevant. You're bringing in irrelevancies.
If people had said "I voted for Obama because I like the way he will conduct business", I would not be arguing with them. The same goes for "I don't want a divisive president", and most of the other arguments presented. I agree, Obama will conduct business in more positive way than his predecessors have. He will likely be less divisive than them. It is the placing of these things under 'change' that I was arguing against.

Of course you are. Because if we count change as change, then your argument is idiotic. So you have to pretend all of the changes don't count.

"Sure, that's the change he was talking about, but I don't want to talk about that."

I did not say his selections do not support his claim of a different type of politics. I said they do not support his claim of change. His claim of a different type of politics would fit under the heading of "change", but would have as much meaning as to say that he's bringing change just by being a different leader.

So all different leaders offer a different type of politics? Wanna support that claim? Lemme guess, this will just be another request for support you'll avoid, right?

There's no way for me to pick somebody who would bring major policy change, because he did not promise major policy change (again, that other candidates did not).

I notice you've ignored my request a second time. You drop every argument that doesn't favor you, which, of course, is every argument. Nuh-uh gets a little old with time.

You've long since stopped trying to make a substantive argument. It would be insulting to your intelligence and mine to pretend at this point like you even believe that you're making a real argument.

He was very specific about what change he was offering.
Only on certain issues.

For many (most?) things, foreign policy included, Obama offered ¬Bush, but didn't go into many specifics.

Only on certain issues.

For many (most?) things, foreign policy included, Obama offered ¬Bush, but didn't go into many specifics.

He did? Hmm... here I thought he was very specific on his site. I guess you can give several examples of things he was inspecific about, right? Things I couldn't possible offer the specifics on, right?

I guess you can give several examples of things he was inspecific about, right? Things I couldn't possible offer the specifics on, right?
Foreign policy, especially "American Leadership" throughout the globe and The War Against Terrorism?

The accountability of financial institutions?

Immigration and 'border control'?

What, specifically, he means by 'investing' in renewable energy?

In all of these issues, Obama promised action, and promised a differing tack that the one Bush has taken. I'm not questioning that his will be (in some way) a different one to Bush's, nor that there will be actual action. But little of what he said during the election was specific.

Foreign policy, especially "American Leadership" throughout the globe and The War Against Terrorism?

Ah, yes, I can't find any specifics on that, at all. Certainly not at a virtually equal level of precision we can find from past Presidents. I certainly, can't supply this link...

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/

The Obama-Biden Plan
Iran
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama and Biden believe that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama and Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama and Biden believe that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Renewing American Diplomacy
The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. They will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
Expand our Diplomatic Presence: To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world – particularly in Africa. They will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.
Fight Global Poverty: Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal. They will help the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.
Strengthen NATO: Obama and Biden will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama and Biden will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. They will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
And while others have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. Butthey will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
Bipartisanship and Openness
The Problem: Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama and Biden strongly believe that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.
A Record of Bringing People Together: In the Senate, Obama has worked with Republicans and Democrats to advance important policy initiatives on securing weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons, increasing funding for nonproliferation, and countering instability in Congo.
Consultative Group: Obama and Biden will convene a bipartisan Consultative Group of leading members of Congress to foster better executive-legislative relations and bipartisan unity on foreign policy. This group will be comprised of the congressional leadership of both political parties, and the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. This group will meet with the president once a month to review foreign policy priorities, and will be consulted in advance of military action.
Getting Politics out of Intelligence: Obama would insulate the Director of National Intelligence from political pressure by giving the DNI a fixed term, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Obama and Biden will seek consistency and integrity at the top of our intelligence community – not just a political ally.
Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring his national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. They will personally deliver occasional fireside chats via webcast.
On Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
Read the full Israel Fact Sheet
Meeting the Challenge of a Resurgent Russia
The Problem: Russia's invasion of Georgia in August 2008 has created a serious new security challenge for the United States and our partners in Europe. In contrast to the Bush Administration's erratic policy of embracing Vladimir Putin but neglecting U.S.-Russian relations, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will address the challenge posed by an increasingly autocratic and bellicose Russia by pursuing a new, comprehensive strategy that advances American national interests without compromising our enduring principles.

A Comprehensive Strategy: Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and we are not returning to the Cold War. Retrofitting outdated 20th century thinking to address this new 21st century challenge will not advance American national interests. Instead, Obama and Biden will address the new challenges Russia poses by pursuing an integrated and vigorous strategy that encompasses the entire region. The core components of this strategy include:

Supporting democratic partners and upholding principles of sovereignty throughout Europe and Eurasia while working proactively to gauge effectively the intentions of actors in the region, and address tensions between countries before they escalate into military confrontations;
Strengthening the Transatlantic alliance, so that we deal with Russia with one, unified voice;
Helping to decrease the dependence of our allies and partners in the region on Russian energy;
Engaging directly with the Russian government on issues of mutual interest, such as countering nuclear proliferation, reducing our nuclear arsenals, expanding trade and investment opportunities, and fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban; and also reaching out directly to the Russian people to promote our common values; and,
Keeping the door open to fuller integration into the global system for all states in the region, including Russia, that demonstrates a commitment to act as responsible, law-abiding members of the international community.
Read Previous Statements on the Republic of Georgia / Russia Conflict
On Africa
Obama's Record: As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Barack Obama has fought to focus America's attention on the challenges facing Africa – stopping the genocide in Darfur, passing legislation to promote stability in the Congo and to bring a war criminal to justice in Liberia, mobilizing international pressure for a just government in Zimbabwe, fighting corruption in Kenya, demanding honesty on HIV/AIDS in South Africa, developing a coherent strategy for stabilizing Somalia, and travelling across the continent raising awareness for these critical issues. He has also increased America's focus on the long term challenges of education, poverty reduction, disease, strengthening democratic institutions and spurring sustainable economic development in Africa.
Stop the Genocide in Darfur: As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force. He and Joe Biden will hold the government in Khartoum accountable for abiding by its commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Accord that ended the 30 year conflict between the north and south. Obama worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in 2006.
Fight Poverty: Obama and Joe Biden will double our annual investment in foreign assistance from $25 billion in 2008 to $50 billion by the end of his first term and make the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, America's goals. They will fully fund debt cancellation for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries in order to provide sustainable debt relief and invest at least $50 billion by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including our fair share of the Global Fund.
Expand Prosperity: Obama and Biden will expand prosperity by establishing an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative, creating a fund that will extend seed capital and technical assistance to small and medium enterprises, and reforming the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. They will launch the Global Energy and Environment Initiative to ensure African countries have access to low carbon energy technology and can profitably participate in the new global carbon market so as to ensure solid economic development even while the world dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions. They will also strengthen the African Growth and Opportunity Act to ensure that African producers can access the U.S. market and will encourage more American companies to invest on the continent.
On Latin America & the Caribbean
The Problem: George Bush’s policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in people’s lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region. As the Americas have changed, we have sat on the sideline, offering no compelling vision and creating a vacuum for demagogues to advance an anti-American agenda.
Start a New Chapter of Engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean: Obama and Biden will rebuild diplomatic links throughout the hemisphere through aggressive, principled, and sustained diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. He will bolster U.S. interests in the region by pursuing policies that advance democracy, opportunity, and security and will treat our hemispheric partners and neighbors with dignity and respect.
Promote Democracy in Cuba and Throughout the Hemisphere: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support democracy that is strong and sustainable in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas. In the case of Cuba, they will empower our best ambassadors of freedom by allowing unlimited Cuban-American family travel and remittances to the island. Using aggressive and principled bilateral diplomacy he will also send an important message: if a post-Fidel government takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with freeing all political prisoners, the U.S. is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. Throughout the hemisphere, Obama and Biden will increase support for the building blocks of durable democracies—strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law.
Work Towards Energy Security: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will bring together the countries of the region in a new Energy Partnership for the Americas to forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy. They will call on the American people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go to the region and beyond to help develop clean energy solutions.
Advance Opportunity from the Bottom-up: Obama and Biden will substantially increase our aid to the Americas and embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.
Trade Policy That Works for All People in All Countries: Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. They will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security and will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.
Advance Security Across the Region: Obama and Biden believe that we need to target all sources of insecurity through a new hemispheric security initiative. This initiative will foster cooperation within the region to combat gangs, trafficking and violent criminal activity. It will strive to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to tailor approaches to fit each country.

Yup, hardly any info at all.

But can I find more?

Protecting our Homeland
The Problem
Conventional thinking has failed to adapt to a world of new threats. Barack Obama and Joe Biden understand that a range of risks, both natural and manmade, can have major consequences for the security, prosperity, and well-being of Americans at home and abroad. We need a president who understands these new security threats - and who has effective strategies for addressing them.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
The first responsibility of any president is to protect the American people. Yet, seven years after the 9/11 attacks, we are not as safe as we can and should be. As president, Barack Obama will provide the leadership and strategies to strengthen our security at home.

Barack Obama's strategy for securing the homeland against 21st century threats is focused on preventing terrorist attacks on our homeland, preparing and planning for emergencies and natural disasters and investing in strong response and recovery capabilities. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen our homeland against natural or accidental disasters and terrorist threats - ensuring the federal government works with states, localities, and the private sector as a true partner in prevention, mitigation, and response.

Defeat Terrorism Worldwide
Find, Disrupt, and Destroy Al Qaeda: Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq and focus on the right battlefield in Afghanistan. An Obama Administration will work with other nations to strengthen their capacity to eliminate shared enemies.

New Capabilities to Aggressively Defeat Terrorists: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will improve the American intelligence apparatus by investing in its capacity to collect and analyze information, share information with other agencies and carry out operations to disrupt terrorist operations and networks.

Prepare the Military to Meet 21st Century Threats: Barack Obama will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a threat to America. Obama will ensure that our military becomes more stealthy, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. He will bolster our military's ability to speak different languages, navigate different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Win the Battle of Ideas: An Obama Administration will defeat al Qaeda in what the 9-11 Commission called "the Battle of Ideas" by returning to an American foreign policy consistent with America's traditional values and by working with moderates within the Islamic world to counter al Qaeda propaganda. Barack Obama will establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to work to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.

Restore American Influence and Restore Our Values: Thwarting terrorist networks requires international partnerships in military, intelligence, law enforcement, financial transactions, border controls, and transportation security. To make diplomacy more effective, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world. He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.

Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
Barack Obama and Joe Biden have a comprehensive strategy for nuclear security that will reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism, prevent the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Secure Nuclear Weapons Materials in Four Years and End Nuclear Smuggling: Barack Obama will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons materials at vulnerable sites within four years - the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama will fully implement the Lugar-Obama legislation to help our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction.

Strengthen Policing and Interdiction Efforts: Barack Obama will institutionalize the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a global initiative aimed at stopping shipments of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials worldwide.

Convene a Summit on Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Barack Obama will convene a summit in 2009 (and regularly thereafter) of leaders of Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and other key countries to agree on implementing many of these measures on a global basis.

Eliminate Iran's and North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Programs Through Tough, Direct Diplomacy: Barack Obama will use tough diplomacy - backed by real incentives and real pressures - to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate fully and verifiably North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Barack Obama will seek to ensure that the Agency gets the authority, information, people, and technology it needs to do its job.

Control Fissile Materials: Barack Obama will lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty ending the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes.

Prevent Nuclear Fuel from Becoming Nuclear Bombs: Barack Obama will work with other interested governments to establish a new international nuclear energy architecture - including an international nuclear fuel bank, international nuclear fuel cycle centers, and reliable fuel supply assurances - to meet growing demands for nuclear power without contributing to the proliferation of nuclear materials and fuel production facilities.

Set the Goal of a Nuclear-Free World: Barack Obama will show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. Barack Obama fully supports reaffirming this goal, as called for by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, and the specific steps they propose to move us in that direction. He has made clear that America will not disarm unilaterally.

Seek Real, Verifiable Reductions in Nuclear Stockpiles: Barack Obama will seek deep, verifiable reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency.

Work with Russia to Increase Warning and Decision Time: Keeping nuclear weapons ready to launch on a moment's notice is a dangerous relic of the Cold War. Barack Obama believes that we must address this dangerous situation. As president, Barack Obama will aim to work with Russia to end such Cold War policies in a mutual and verifiable manner.

Appoint White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security: Barack Obama will appoint a deputy national security advisor to be in charge of coordinating all U.S. programs aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism and weapons proliferation.

Strengthen Nuclear Risk Reduction Work at Defense, State, and Energy Departments: Thwarting terrorist networks requires international partnerships in military, intelligence, law enforcement, financial transactions, border controls, and transportation security. To make diplomacy more effective, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world. He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.

Strengthen American Biosecurity
Biological weapons pose a serious and increasing national security risk. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to prevent bioterror attacks and mitigate consequences.

Prevent Bioterror Attacks: Obama and Joe Biden will strengthen U.S. intelligence collection overseas to identify and interdict would-be bioterrorists before they strike.

Build Capacity to Mitigate the Consequences of Bioterror Attacks: A well-planned, well-rehearsed, and rapidly executed epidemic response can dramatically diminish the consequences of biological attacks. Barack Obama will ensure that decision-makers have the information and communication tools they need to manage disease outbreaks by linking health care providers, hospitals, and public health agencies.

Accelerate the Development of New Medicines, Vaccines, and Production Capabilities: Barack Obama will build on America's unparalleled talent to create new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostic tests and to manufacture these vital products much more quickly and efficiently than is now possible.

Lead an International Effort to Diminish Impact of Major Infectious Disease Epidemics: Senator Obama was one of the first legislators to recognize the dangers of a potential avian influenza pandemic and was successful in securing $25 million for U.S. agencies to combat and contain widespread outbreaks of avian flu and worked to provide $4 billion in funding to the Centers for Disease Control to combat avian flu. Barack Obama will continue to promote international efforts to develop new diagnostics, vaccines, and medicines that will be available and affordable in all parts of the world.

Protect Our Information Networks
As president, Barack Obama will lead an effort, working with private industry, the research community and our citizens, to build a trustworthy and accountable cyber infrastructure that is resilient, protects America's competitive advantage, and advances our national and homeland security.

Strengthen Federal Leadership on Cyber Security: Barack Obama will declare the cyber infrastructure a strategic asset and will establish the position of national cyber advisor who will report directly to the president and will be responsible for coordinating federal agency efforts and development of national cyber policy.

Initiate a Safe Computing R&D Effort and Harden our Nation's Cyber Infrastructure: Barack Obama will support an initiative to develop next-generation secure computers and networking for national security applications. He will work with industry and academia to develop and deploy a new generation of secure hardware and software for our nation's critical cyber infrastructure.

Protect the IT Infrastructure That Keeps America's Economy Safe: The public and private infrastructure that keeps America running is increasingly brought online to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Barack Obama will work with the private sector to establish tough new standards for cyber security and physical resilience for critical infrastructure.

Prevent Corporate Cyber-Espionage: Innovations in software, engineering, pharmaceuticals and other fields are being stolen online from U.S. businesses at an alarming rate. These losses are making America less safe and less competitive and costing us jobs here at home. Barack Obama will work with industry to develop the systems necessary to protect our nation's trade secrets and our research and development.

Develop a Cyber Crime Strategy to Minimize the Opportunities for Criminal Profit: Barack Obama will shut down the mechanisms used to transmit criminal profits by shutting down untraceable Internet payment schemes. Barack Obama will also initiate a grant and training program to provide federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to detect and prosecute cyber crime.

Mandate Standards for Securing Personal Data and Require Companies to Disclose Personal Information Data Breaches: Nearly 10 million Americans are victims of identity theft each year, costing more than $55 billion. We must ensure that the privacy of personnel data in computer systems is better protected. The federal government must partner with industry and our citizens to secure personal data stored on government and private systems. An Obama administration will institute a common standard for securing such data across industries and will back strong legislation to protect the rights of individuals in the information age.

Improve Intelligence Capacity and Protect Civil Liberties
Improve Information Sharing and Analysis: Barack Obama will improve our intelligence system by creating a senior position to coordinate domestic intelligence gathering; establishing a grant program to support thousands more state and local level intelligence analysts and increasing our capacity to share intelligence across all levels of government.

Give Real Authority to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board: Created by Congress and recommended by the 9/11 Commission, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board needs to be substantially reformed and empowered to safeguard against an erosion in American civil liberties. As president, Barack Obama will support efforts to strengthen the Board with subpoena powers and reporting responsibilities, will give the Board a robust mandate designed to protect American civil liberties and will demand transparency from the Board to ensure accountability.

Strengthen Institutions to Fight Terrorism: Overseas, Barack Obama will establish a Shared Security Partnership Program to invest $5 billion over three years to improve cooperation between U.S. and foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies. This program will include information sharing, as well as funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and the targeting of terrorist financing.

Protect Americans from Terrorist Attacks and Natural Disasters
Allocate Funds Based on Risk: Barack Obama believes that the President and Congress should allocate our precious homeland security dollars according to risk, not as pork-barrel spending or a form of general revenue sharing. He will eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse that cost the nation billions of Department of Homeland Security dollars.

Prepare Effective Emergency Response Plans: Obama passed legislation to provide funding for planning for evacuating individuals with special needs from emergency zones and to create a National Family Locator System to help families locate loved ones after a disaster. As president, Obama will further improve coordination between all levels of government, create better evacuation plan guidelines, ensure prompt federal assistance to emergency zones, and increase medical surge capacity.

Support First Responders: Barack Obama is committed not only to rolling back the Bush-McCain funding cuts that have affected our first responders - police, firefighters, and emergency medical professionals - but also to increasing federal resources and logistic support to local emergency planning efforts.

Improve Interoperable Communications Systems: Barack Obama supports efforts to provide greater technical assistance to local and state first responders and dramatically increase funding for reliable, interoperable communications systems. He will appoint a National Chief Technology Officer who will have the responsibility to ensure that the current non-interoperable plans at the federal, state, and local levels are combined, funded, implemented and effective.

Working with State and Local Governments and the Private Sector: Barack Obama believes the federal government must be a better partner to states and localities, listen to local concerns and consider local priorities. Barack Obama will reach out to the private sector to leverage its expertise and assets to protect our homeland security.

Protect Critical Infrastructure
Create a National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Barack Obama's Department of Homeland Security will develop an effective critical infrastructure protection and resiliency plan for the nation and will work with the private sector to ensure that targets are protected against both natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Secure our Chemical Plants: Chemical plants are potential terrorist targets because they are often located near cities, are relatively easy to attack, and contain multi-ton quantities of hazardous chemicals. As president, Barack Obama will work with all stakeholders to enact permanent federal chemical security regulations.

Improve Airline Security: Barack Obama believes we must redouble our efforts to determine if the measures implemented since 9/11 are adequately addressing the threats our nation continues to face from airplane-based terrorism. Airline passengers are still not screened against a comprehensive terrorist watch list. Such a list must be developed and used in a way that safeguards passengers' privacy while ensuring the safety of air travel.

Monitor our Ports: Barack Obama has been a consistent supporter of strengthening our port security, will redouble our efforts to develop technology that can detect radiation and determine the danger it poses, and he will work with the maritime transportation industry to integrate this technology into their operations so as to maximize security without causing economic disruption.

Safeguard Public Transportation: Every weekday, Americans take 34 million trips on public transportation systems to get to work, school and beyond. Despite recent international attacks on mass transit systems, the Bush administration has invested only a small fraction of the $6 billion that transportation officials have said is necessary to implement needed security improvements. Barack Obama will fill this critical hole in our homeland security network.

Improve Border Security: Americans know that our national border security system is broken, leaving our country vulnerable. Barack Obama will support the virtual and physical infrastructure and manpower necessary to secure our borders and keep our nation safe.

Modernize America's Aging Infrastructure
Build-in Security: Barack Obama will ensure that security is considered and built into the design of new infrastructure, so that our critical assets are protected from the start and more resilient to naturally-occurring and deliberate threats throughout their life-cycle.

Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank: Barack Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation's most challenging transportation infrastructure needs, without the influence of special interests. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation.

Invest in Critical Infrastructure Projects: Barack Obama will invest in our nation's most pressing short and long-term infrastructure needs, including modernizing our electrical grid and upgrading our highway, rail, ports, water, and aviation infrastructure. Obama will establish a Grid Modernization Commission to facilitate adoption of Smart Grid practices to improve efficiency and security of our electricity grid. He will also build on his work in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the federal government prioritizes strengthening our critical infrastructure.

If only he would offer a little bit of explanation of his positions.

Immigration and 'border control'?

Yup, can't find anything on border control either.

Plan for Immigration
The Problem
Undocumented population is exploding: The number of undocumented immigrants in the country has increased more than 40 percent since 2000. Every year, more than a half-million people come illegally or illegally overstay their visas.

Immigration bureaucracy is broken: The immigration bureaucracy is broken and overwhelmed, forcing legal immigrants to wait years for applications.

Immigration raids are ineffective: Despite a sevenfold increase in recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant families.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Create Secure Borders
Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System
Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama and Biden will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Work with Mexic
Obama and Biden believe we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.

Barack Obama's Record
Crack Down on Employers: Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.
Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.
Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together.

You're right. He offers absolutely nothing specific.

What, specifically, he means by 'investing' in renewable energy?

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

That one is 8 pages, so I won't bomb you with that one, but, hey, that's hardly any specifics. I mean, certainly, we would expect an entire book on each topic.


In all of these issues, Obama promised action, and promised a differing tack that the one Bush has taken. I'm not questioning that his will be (in some way) a different one to Bush's, nor that there will be actual action. But little of what he said during the election was specific.

Yes, how dare anyone expect you to get informed? If Obama doesn't bombard you with specifics every minute of every day, then he's vague.

Of course, those are quite specific, but, hey, if you keep repeating the same debunked charge, I'm sure we'll all forget all the information he actually offered.

[1 - American Leadership]
"The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support...

The Problem: Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama and Biden strongly believe that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people..."
How is this 'specific'?

As I said, it's ¬Bush, and some very nice sentiments (hopefully that will be acted upon), but the above is in no way specific. The points that are detailed more, such as wishing to "expand our diplomatic presence" and "strengthen NATO" or wishing to talk more with Russia, are mostly lists of what Obama/Biden want to happen, not how they will acheive it. How, for example, will the US administration "streamlining the decision-making processes" of NATO? What, specifically, are all these strategies and initiatives that they mention to do with Russia, North Korea etc.?

"Barack Obama will use tough diplomacy - backed by real incentives and real pressures - to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate fully and verifiably North Korea's nuclear weapons program."

Fantastic. But hardly specific.

Once again, I'm not saying these things won't happen, nor that Obama could have/should have been more specific during the campaign; just that on many points he's not particularly specific.

Your copypasta from his site shows this.

[2 - TWAT]
[I]Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials...

The first responsibility of any president is to protect the American people. Yet, seven years after the 9/11 attacks, we are not as safe as we can and should be. As president, Barack Obama will provide the leadership and strategies to strengthen our security at home.

Barack Obama's strategy for securing the homeland against 21st century threats is focused on preventing terrorist attacks on our homeland, preparing and planning for emergencies and natural disasters and investing in strong response and recovery capabilities. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen our homeland against natural or accidental disasters and terrorist threats - ensuring the federal government works with states, localities, and the private sector as a true partner in prevention, mitigation, and response...

Find, Disrupt, and Destroy Al Qaeda: Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq and focus on the right battlefield in Afghanistan. An Obama Administration will work with other nations to strengthen their capacity to eliminate shared enemies.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will improve the American intelligence apparatus by investing in its capacity to collect and analyze information, share information with other agencies and carry out operations to disrupt terrorist operations and networks.

Barack Obama will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a threat to America. Obama will ensure that our military becomes more stealthy, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. He will bolster our military's ability to speak different languages, navigate different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.
None of this is specific, 'just' a "we'll do better than Bush".


Win the Battle of Ideas...

Secure Nuclear Weapons Materials in Four Years and End Nuclear Smuggling...

Strengthen Policing and Interdiction Efforts...

Convene a Summit on Preventing Nuclear Terrorism...
These, however, are more specific.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Though some issues are detailed out specifically, some aren't.


Yup, can't find anything on border control either.
No, seemingly you can't:

[3 - Immigration/Border Control]
Create Secure Borders
Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System
Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama and Biden will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Work with Mexic
Obama and Biden believe we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.
What's specific about the above?

[4 - Energy Policy]
Provide short‐term relief to American families facing pain at the pump

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined

Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon - on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America

Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025

Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050
Once again, non-specific.

The report does give more detailed plans but key points, such as what Obama/Biden actually mean by 'renewable energy', don't appear.

Cheers for proving me right, mate.

How is this 'specific'?

*snip*

Cheers for proving me right, mate.

How specific is specific enough for you, mate?

You appear to be applying a definition of specific that is not only divorced from the reality of Presidential politics, but from reality itself.

How specific is specific enough for you, mate?
More specific than (to choose one example) "Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill."

They want to fix the system? Great.

How?

The same with much of it. There's talk of 'investing in' or simply 'fixing' systems, or 'finding solutions'. Perhaps Obama/Biden will; it'd be nice if they did. But little of the above is specific.

Listen, I'm not one of the kooks screaming about how we don't 'know' Obama (the proliferance of whom I suspect is the root cause of Jocabia's sarkiness), or those weirdos who think Obama's got a Qur'an hidden up his sleeve , I'm just countering Jocabia's claim that "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering".

He was specific, very specific on some issues, but not on others. I'm not evaluating the man, just observing.

Sure, like being a teacher is a personality trait. (Hint: it isn't)How is being a teacher like racism?

You're missing the point. You could trace anything back to personality if you like. You've just simplified to the point of absurdity. Everything is based on personality the way you've defined it.Not really, no. The way a person makes decisions is based upon their personality. The decisions that they make are not.

No, it isn't. That's the point. Again, your argument relies on ignoring everything that debunks it.You've spent very little time talking about policy change, how could I be ignoring something that debunks my argument?

You've admitted to all kinds of change, but basically said that every change doesn't count because you don't want it to. He wasn't talking about him being the only possible way to change the Presidency. Otherwise, we'd have voted for a chipmunk. He was very specific about what change he was offering. You've chosen to ignore all the evidence for your rather numbing rant about how it's not change unless you say it is.I'm saying that it doesn't count because it isn't particularly a meaningful type of change.

Of course you are. Because if we count change as change, then your argument is idiotic. So you have to pretend all of the changes don't count.They don't.

"Sure, that's the change he was talking about, but I don't want to talk about that."So he was talking about the miniscule type of change you're referring to?

So all different leaders offer a different type of politics? Wanna support that claim? Lemme guess, this will just be another request for support you'll avoid, right?You've acknowledged that McCain and Clinton offered up a different type of politics. You stated there was little reason to believe them, which there is, but nonetheless it is what they offered.

I notice you've ignored my request a second time. You drop every argument that doesn't favor you, which, of course, is every argument.If you want to know why I suggested Paul Krugman instead of Tim Geithner, it is because Paul Krugman knows economics, has contributed substantially to economic theory, has "liberal" economic views but has experience working in the Reagan administration, and hass positions on things like farm subsidies that differ from Obama's.

How is being a teacher like racism?

That neither one of them are personality traits. Teaching is a behavior. Racism is a behavior. Being a racist is a personality trait, like being a waiter is, or being a teacher, or a columnist, or a painter, or a singer, or a bowler, or a book reader is. That is to say, none of them are personality traits.


Not really, no. The way a person makes decisions is based upon their personality. The decisions that they make are not.

Heh. Amusing. You've not so carefully ignored everything that's an actual decision (which is why you don't wish to consider the changes in policy) in an effort once again to avoid the actual argument.

A change in style of leadership is based on behavior. He's not talking about smiling more. He's talking about shifting the policy of the Presidency toward those they govern, those that ask for things from the President, those he deals with. This is behavior. This is policy. Trying to molest it into being a personality trait like friendliness or shyness is absurd.


You've spent very little time talking about policy change, how could I be ignoring something that debunks my argument?

Every time I mention policy change you say it's not relevent. Despite conceding his policy change is dramatic, you wish to pretend that such a change isn't worth acknowledging in this argument. It is. It does debunk your argument. And refusing to address it IS ignoring it.

I'm saying that it doesn't count because it isn't particularly a meaningful type of change.

Of course you are. And as long as you ignore everything meaningful about it, it's not particularly meaningful. Unfortunately for you, you're completely incapable of showing any specific way Obama could have better represented change other than a vague reference to outsiders. The only better choice you've suggested, you've refused to explain. It's no wonder why, you have no argument.

They don't.

Like I said, your argument boils down to "nuh-uh".

So he was talking about the miniscule type of change you're referring to?

Well, hey, if you refer to it as miniscule, that substitutes for an argument. Try "nuh-uh" again, that's kind of like an argument.

You've acknowledged that McCain and Clinton offered up a different type of politics. You stated there was little reason to believe them, which there is, but nonetheless it is what they offered.
No, I haven't. I, in fact, said that they would not be a shift in the type of politics. I said they tried to take up the Obama argument for change, but they didn't actually make any sort of real offer of a change.

However, even assuming they offered, how does that help your argument?

It is by the way amusing that you just substituted "different type of politics" for the message of change while you've argued for a dozen pages that it doesn't mean that. Don't worry, if you just keep going, no one will notice that you've just demonstrated that you're not actually making an argument that even convinces you.

If you want to know why I suggested Paul Krugman instead of Tim Geithner, it is because Paul Krugman knows economics, has contributed substantially to economic theory, has "liberal" economic views but has experience working in the Reagan administration, and hass positions on things like farm subsidies that differ from Obama's.

Which shows why you like him, but how does that better embody Obama's campaign promises? Certainly, you aren't arguing that Obama actually meant "the change I'm offering is that I will choose people who are from outside Washington regardless of everything else about them", are you?

Let's be clear, what specifically do you think he brings to the cabinet that is currently lacking? You didn't actually just offer a comparison. You offered why you like him. You are aware that you have to actually form an argument in debate, yeah?

More specific than (to choose one example) "Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill."

They want to fix the system? Great.

How?

The same with much of it. There's talk of 'investing in' or simply 'fixing' systems, or 'finding solutions'. Perhaps Obama/Biden will; it'd be nice if they did. But little of the above is specific.

Listen, I'm not one of the kooks screaming about how we don't 'know' Obama (the proliferance of whom I suspect is the root cause of Jocabia's sarkiness), or those weirdos who think Obama's got a Qur'an hidden up his sleeve , I'm just countering Jocabia's claim that "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering".

He was specific, very specific on some issues, but not on others. I'm not evaluating the man, just observing.

Rewrite it. It's your campaign now. Go ahead. Let's hear it.

That neither one of them are personality traits. Teaching is a behavior. Racism is a behavior. Being a racist is a personality trait, like being a waiter is, or being a teacher, or a columnist, or a painter, or a singer, or a bowler, or a book reader is. That is to say, none of them are personality traits.Racism is an attitude. Behaviors can be based on attitudes, but they are not attitudes.

Heh. Amusing. You've not so carefully ignored everything that's an actual decision (which is why you don't wish to consider the changes in policy) in an effort once again to avoid the actual argument.I'm not considering the changes in policy because they are less major than those of his competitors. Why would they be relevant if they do less?

A change in style of leadership is based on behavior. He's not talking about smiling more. He's talking about shifting the policy of the Presidency toward those they govern, those that ask for things from the President, those he deals with. This is behavior. This is policy. Trying to molest it into being a personality trait like friendliness or shyness is absurd.That type of shift and of itself is not a change in policy. It could be part of a change in policy, but not by itself. It could be that in paying more attention to the people who ask things from him, that he could make decisions that better reflect what they want, but he might ignore them as well.

Every time I mention policy change you say it's not relevent. Despite conceding his policy change is dramatic, you wish to pretend that such a change isn't worth acknowledging in this argument. It is. It does debunk your argument. And refusing to address it IS ignoring it.You've barely touched upon policy change. You mentioned Iraq, and that's pretty much it. Unfortunately for you, a dozen other candidates also favor withdrawal from Iraq. While withdrawal from Iraq is significant, Obama's position on the issue doesn't offer anything new.

Of course you are. And as long as you ignore everything meaningful about it, it's not particularly meaningful.There's nothing meaningful about it to ignore.

Unfortunately for you, you're completely incapable of showing any specific way Obama could have better represented change other than a vague reference to outsiders. The only better choice you've suggested, you've refused to explain. It's no wonder why, you have no argument.Obama could have better represented change by offering up policies that change more. Universal healthcare would be a significant policy change. Gay marriage would be a significant policy change. Getting rid of the PATRIOT Act would be a significant policy change. Since Obama doesn't offer these changes, it would be rather silly for me to point out that he should have people in his cabinet that will implement these changes.

Well, hey, if you refer to it as miniscule, that substitutes for an argument. Try "nuh-uh" again, that's kind of like an argument.I don't seem to be getting through to you. I don't know that an analogy will convey what I want it to, but I will try one anyway.

I assume you hire people, or have hired people as part of your job, right? When you hire people, irrespective of the position they're taking, I presume you look for certain things.

Some of these things might be that:

The person you hire should use wise judgment when making decisions. They should get several opinions on the matter, if those opinions are relevant.
They should refrain from creating divisiveness in the office, and should represent the company in such a way that they don't create hostility in outsiders either.
They should refrain from making decisions based upon racism, or sexism, or the other isms.
They should not be reckless or wasteful with company resources.

Am I correct? Is this what you expect from your employees, at the bare minimum?

No, I haven't. I, in fact, said that they would not be a shift in the type of politics. I said they tried to take up the Obama argument for change, but they didn't actually make any sort of real offer of a change.They would not represent a shift in politics, but they said that they would in words. When you say you'll do something, you offer to do it, whether or not you come through in the end.

It is by the way amusing that you just substituted "different type of politics" for the message of change while you've argued for a dozen pages that it doesn't mean that. Don't worry, if you just keep going, no one will notice that you've just demonstrated that you're not actually making an argument that even convinces you.Wow. Completely and utterly wrong. You said he offered up a different type of politics. Even if this was the message of change that he offered, it merely confirms my argument that he didn't intend to offer significant change.

Which shows why you like him, but how does that better embody Obama's campaign promises? Certainly, you aren't arguing that Obama actually meant "the change I'm offering is that I will choose people who are from outside Washington regardless of everything else about them", are you?No, I'm not suggesting that he pick people from outside of Washington regardless of everything else about them.
Once again, the argument is not about what Obama promised, it is about what he didn't promise - meaningful change.

Let's be clear, what specifically do you think he brings to the cabinet that is currently lacking? You didn't actually just offer a comparison. You offered why you like him.The cabinet is currently lacking somebody who will offer Obama advice on a different type of fiscal policy than the one that Obama currently seems to want to undertake. Obama could use this type of advice because fiscal policy will be important in the upcoming years.
Tim Geithner is unlikely to do this because he currently works for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve (under Greenspan) is partially responsible for the current financial crisis. I am unaware of Geithner's role in this, but he was unable to prevent the Fed from making poor decisions.

Rewrite it. It's your campaign now. Go ahead. Let's hear it.
I am confused at the source of your immaturity. Perhaps it is force of habit to attack anyone who discusses Obama in less than a messianic light with petty nonsense. No matter.

A simple fact: Obama, on some policies, was non-specific.

This has been shown. I have already stated that on the issues his campaign wasn't specific on, it was perhaps impossible to be specific, but to deny that he was non-specific on these issues is foolish.

Especially when you yourself showed it to be true.

A simple fact: Obama, on some policies, was non-specific.


The more detailed his policies got the more I cringed; most economists will admit that his lack of experience will greatly affect his economic decision-making. Defininitely not a good thing.

The more detailed his policies got the more I cringed; most economists will admit that his lack of experience will greatly affect his economic decision-making.
They will?

Are they as ignorant as you are of the concept of advisors?

They will?

Are they as ignorant as you are of the concept of advisors?

The great majority of his cabinet are, in some way, his political rivals. They're going to be undermining him the entire way.

The great majority of his cabinet are, in some way, his political rivals. They're going to be undermining him the entire way.
To the end of... what?

I am confused at the source of your immaturity. Perhaps it is force of habit to attack anyone who discusses Obama in less than a messianic light with petty nonsense. No matter.

A simple fact: Obama, on some policies, was non-specific.

This has been shown. I have already stated that on the issues his campaign wasn't specific on, it was perhaps impossible to be specific, but to deny that he was non-specific on these issues is foolish.

Especially when you yourself showed it to be true.

Insulting me is almost like an answer, but isn't.

Feel free to actually answer.

I'm asking you to be specific as to what's missing. I want to see you give an example of what he should have written so that you'd have a different opinion? It's called making an argument. How about you do so instead of presenting a fallacy this time?

Insulting me is almost like an answer, but isn't.
An answer to what? Your immature response to being proven wrong?

You said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14313838&postcount=88) that, "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering", then, when I questioned that Obama was specific on all issues, you said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314006&postcount=90) (in an unhelpful manner) that, "I guess you can give several examples of things he was inspecific about, right?".

I did just that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314024&postcount=91), whereupon you then backed up my case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314063&postcount=92).

Unless you wish to claim that statements such as "Barack Obama will provide the leadership and strategies to strengthen our security at home" is somehow specific, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on. Go through the text you yourself copied from Obama's own website; much of it is non-specific.

It's a rather simple notion.

I think its funny....when this thread started he was too left...

Now he's Diet Republican....

I like how this admin's goin so far, lol...

Diet Republican - quote of the month.

Rick Warren at the inauguration is about as damning an indictment of his call for change as is possible. Isolate the religious base, don't pander to them at all, and you can reduce the GOP to that alone - which will now provide a path to 270 in 2012, surely?

An answer to what? Your immature response to being proven wrong?

You said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14313838&postcount=88) that, "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering", then, when I questioned that Obama was specific on all issues, you said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314006&postcount=90) (in an unhelpful manner) that, "I guess you can give several examples of things he was inspecific about, right?".

I did just that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314024&postcount=91), whereupon you then backed up my case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314063&postcount=92).

Unless you wish to claim that statements such as "Barack Obama will provide the leadership and strategies to strengthen our security at home" is somehow specific, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on. Go through the text you yourself copied from Obama's own website; much of it is non-specific.

It's a rather simple notion.

You didn't prove anything. Again, attacking me personally won't help you avoid a response.

My question to you is, what is missing? You just make vague accusations that he is missing something, but when asked to be more specific you claim it's immature.

Asking you to clarify is immature? If you wanna play it that way, feel free, but don't expect anyone to actually play along.

Now, can you clarify? Are you capable? What specifically do you think should have been included? What specifically was missing? What specifically would you add?

See the problem here is that you picked out one line of hundreds of lines. I can't show you that he was specific unless you tell me what would qualify as specific enough for you. I suspect you know this since rather than answering, you've started attacking me.

The cabinet is currently lacking somebody who will offer Obama advice on a different type of fiscal policy than the one that Obama currently seems to want to undertake. Obama could use this type of advice because fiscal policy will be important in the upcoming years.

Tim Geithner is unlikely to do this because he currently works for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve (under Greenspan) is partially responsible for the current financial crisis. I am unaware of Geithner's role in this, but he was unable to prevent the Fed from making poor decisions.

And we get down to the point. That's what I wanted to see. It's not that he isn't representing change. It's that you disagree with Obama and wanted him to choose people who are closer to what you'd like. It has nothing to do with no change and everything to do with you wanted him to do what you want.

I'm going to ignore the rest of nonsense where you try to pretend that you can look at one particular aspect of what people like about Obama without considering EVERYTHING that people supported.

You didn't prove anything. Again, attacking me personally won't help you avoid a response.

My question to you is, what is missing? You just make vague accusations that he is missing something, but when asked to be more specific you claim it's immature.

Asking you to clarify is immature? If you wanna play it that way, feel free, but don't expect anyone to actually play along.

Now, can you clarify? Are you capable? What specifically do you think should have been included? What specifically was missing? What specifically would you add?

See the problem here is that you picked out one line of hundreds of lines. I can't show you that he was specific unless you tell me what would qualify as specific enough for you. I suspect you know this since rather than answering, you've started attacking me.

Whoa, dude. Just look at Chumbly's post. I just entered this conversation with no prior knowledge of the argument, and his post (WITH links proving his validity) totally made an outline of how the conversation has flowed. You're dead wrong.

My question to you is, what is missing? You just make vague accusations that he is missing something...
No, I make the simple claim that some of the policies that Obama proposed/proposes are non-specific.

Let's just take one example (for one example is all I need to show, as all I am claiming is that some of Obama's policy pledges are non-specific):

Create Secure Borders
Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System
Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama and Biden will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Work with Mexico
Obama and Biden believe we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.
These are non-specific pledges.

A simple premise, adequately proven.

No, I make the simple claim that some of the policies that Obama proposed/proposes are non-specific.

Let's just take one example (for one example is all I need to show, as all I am claiming is that some of Obama's policy pledges are non-specific):

These are non-specific pledges.

A simple premise, adequately proven.

aww, you are so demanding. just because a proposal that calls for 'additional personnel to preserve the integrity of our borders' could be fulfilled by hiring one additional border patrol guy or by mobilizing the entire populace into vigilante groups, that's no reason to say something isn't specific.

[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands;14294374]I think that's the point though...he changed his views on Iraq, on some of his more 'socialistic' policies (he cited doing so because of the economic climate), some of his more enviornmental policies (same reason as previously stated), has basically stated he's gonna continue the war on terror and ramp it up in places like Pakistan...etc etc

[QUOTE]

Actually, he still has said he's withdrawing in Iraq, In a recent interview he talked about his enviormental policies and has said that he intends to step up the enviromental policy in this country, cnn reported on that one. I love how conservatives use that little buzz word socialism. You realize of course that the socialist party of america is pretty angry because they don't think of Obama as a socialist and yet all of these radical reactionaries keep using that word.

Except, he's not.

You know that old saying? Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer. The rationale behind it is that you can keep a closer eye on your opponents and limit the damage they can do as opposed to if they were running free. How do you know he's not doing that?

That's exactly what he's doing, he's following the example set by abraham lincoln.

I am confused at the source of your immaturity. Perhaps it is force of habit to attack anyone who discusses Obama in less than a messianic light with petty nonsense. No matter.

A simple fact: Obama, on some policies, was non-specific.

This has been shown. I have already stated that on the issues his campaign wasn't specific on, it was perhaps impossible to be specific, but to deny that he was non-specific on these issues is foolish.

Especially when you yourself showed it to be true.
Most candidates were non specific on some issues. If you want to, I can Highlight these but i'd rather not go through the process.

Most candidates were non specific on some issues.
I quite agree.

I'm not criticising Obama over anybody else, just pointing out fact.

No, I make the simple claim that some of the policies that Obama proposed/proposes are non-specific.

Let's just take one example (for one example is all I need to show, as all I am claiming is that some of Obama's policy pledges are non-specific):


These are non-specific pledges.

A simple premise, adequately proven.

And I ask you again, what is missing? What would you like to see to make them more specific? How specific must they be? Are you incapable of answering or are you worried the answer will prove you don't actually have an argument?

Regardless I've asked you a simple question thrice. I'll hold out hope that you'll actually make a genuine effort to hold yourself to the same standard as you do Obama and be specific.

Are you incapable of answering or are you worried the answer will prove you don't actually have an argument?
I see no reason to answer a question that has no relevance on my point, nor argue a for a point I'm not trying to make.

Here's where you're going wrong:

I'll hold out hope that you'll actually make a genuine effort to hold yourself to the same standard as you do Obama and be specific.
I'm not holding Obama to any standard. I'm not suggesting that Obama necessarily should of been specific. I'm not even critiquing the man.

All I'm doing is countering your claim that Obama was very specific with (all) his policy proposals. All I'm saying is that, for example, "Obama and Biden believe we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration", is not specific.

You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow attacking Obama. Let me calm your bruised feelings: I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm just noting that saying one will "do more" is not a specific, detailed plan.

Chill, Winston.

aww, you are so demanding. just because a proposal that calls for 'additional personnel to preserve the integrity of our borders' could be fulfilled by hiring one additional border patrol guy or by mobilizing the entire populace into vigilante groups, that's no reason to say something isn't specific.

Now, see, there you go. Free Soviets makes one post and gives a specific example of what is missing that makes it not specific enough for him.

Apparently, it's not particularly difficult.

In response to you, FS, I'd argue that there isn't a realistic way for him to offer that level of specificity. A Presidential candidate is required to offer up a position on nearly every potential issue. But you certainly have a valid argument. That tends to be infinitely more likely when you actually offer one, rather than offer insults in leiu of arguments.

I see no reason to answer a question that has no relevance on my point, nor argue a for a point I'm not trying to make.

Here's where you're going wrong:


I'm not holding Obama to any standard. I'm not suggesting that Obama necessarily should of been specific. I'm not even critiquing the man.

All I'm doing is countering your claim that Obama was very specific with (all) his policy proposals. All I'm saying is that, for example, "Obama and Biden believe we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration", is not specific.

You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow attacking Obama. Let me calm your bruised feelings: I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm just noting that saying one will "do more" is not a specific, detailed plan.

Chill, Winston.

The problem isn't that you're offering up out of context quotes of how he is being inspecific. That doesn't tell anything. Unless you specifically state what you're looking for there is no way to see if he offered it elsewhere in another statement.

Free Soviets replied once and was able to give a specific example of what was missing. You're either unable to see the difference between what you think is inspecific and specificity you're looking for, or you simply don't have enough faith that your argument is legitimate to actually present it. Either way, insulting me is no substitute for a valid argument.

The only way that quote create a legitimate argument is if it's all he said on the subject. It isn't. So instead of quoting everything he's ever said on the subject in order to see if that satisfies you, I have to know what you're looking for in order to see if, 1, it's reasonable and, 2, ever been addressed by Obama.

For example, FS offered up that Obama was vague on the issue of increasing border patrol, but we have additional information on the subject than was offered thus far. Obama pointed out during his candidacy that he supported a bill that would use national guard troops for border security. That's pretty damn specific as to how he'll increase patrols on the border, given that it's an actual written bill and he supported it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00137

In response to you, FS, I'd argue that there isn't a realistic way for him to offer that level of specificity. A Presidential candidate is required to offer up a position on nearly every potential issue.
As I previously said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14315686&postcount=100).

You are an extremely odd fellow.

But you certainly have a valid argument.
Sorry? FS has a valid argument agreeing with me that Obama wasn't specific on all his issues, but I, stating the argument FS agreed with, don't?

Jo: This fruit bowl has nothing but oranges in it.
Ch: But that one's an apple.
Jo: Why are you attacking the bowl!?!!? What's your problem with oranges!?!?!
Ch: Um...

Unless you specifically state what you're looking for...
Non-specificity in Obama-Biden policy pledges.

It's OK, we found them. Thanks.

As I previously said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14315686&postcount=100).

You are an extremely odd fellow.


Sorry? FS has a valid argument agreeing with me that Obama wasn't specific on all his issues, but I, stating the argument FS agreed with, don't?

Jo: This fruit bowl has nothing but oranges in it.
Ch: But that one's an apple.
Jo: Why are you attacking the bowl!?!!? What's your problem with oranges!?!?!
Ch: Um...

I know it's terribly complicated, but I'll type slowly. Let me know if that helps.

You: He was inspecific on immigration.
Me: How would you make it more specific?
You: You're immature.
Me: Wonderful. WHat is missing from his position on immigration.
You: You're immature and he was inspecific. I already told you that you're immature and that he was inspecific. What part didn't you follow?
Me: Still not an answer. What would you add to make it more specific?
FS: He could offer up how many people he would increase the border patrol by.
Me: Ah, much better. That tells me specifically what you think is missing. Now I have something to argue with.
You: Duh, I don't get it. He just agreed with me.

I know I'm paraphrasing, but tell me what you don't understand about a request to say exactly what you're looking for him to be specific about. "I don't like that color" is how you complained. "I don't like that color. I'd prefer it if it were red" is how FS complained. I know you don't see a difference but it's not a small one.

Or to use your example slightly modified:
Me: He had plenty of types of fruit in the bowl.
You: No, he didn't. He is missing some important fruits.
Me: It's your fruit. Tell me what fruit you'd put in it.
You: You're immature.
Me: What kind of fruit would you add?
You: You're immature.
Me: What fruit is missing?
FS: There are no oranges.
Me: Ah, thank you for being specific.
You: But I already said that.

"I don't like that color" is how you complained. "I don't like that color. I'd prefer it if it were red" is how FS complained. I know you don't see a difference but it's not a small one.
Once again, you're railing at daemons that don't exist. It's time for the dried frog pills.

I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out something that Free Soviets, and now apparently you, agree with.

Comprehension is fun.

Non-specificity in Obama-Biden policy pledges.

It's OK, we found them. Thanks.

No, you didn't. You vaguely referenced them. FS found them. You pointed at a picture and told me that Waldo was there. I asked you where. FS pointed to Waldo so that I'd actually have a chance to address whether it's actually Waldo or just some dude in a striped shirt.

No, you didn't.
Quite correct, old chap.

You found them, when you helpfully copied half of the Obama-Biden site into the thread. That's why I used the first-person, plural personal pronoun 'we' instead of the first-person, singular personal pronoun 'I'.

Once again, you're railing at daemons that don't exist. It's time for the dried frog pills.

I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out something that Free Soviets, and now apparently you, agree with.

Comprehension is fun.

You're pointing out something vague and insulting people who asked you to stop being vague. FS wasn't vague at all.

Vague statements can't be addressed, because they are naturally weak arguments. Obama was vague on immigration is not really debateable without further clarification. There is no way to prove he wasn't vague on immigration without posting every possible peice of information on immigration reform you could potentially want. It's not practical.

Arguing with "Obama didn't specify how many people he would add to border patrol" is quite easy. Either he really didn't and I can't find any examples of him being fairly specific on the issue or I can reference, let's say, a bill Obama voted for and later referenced that he supports that uses national guard troops for border patrol. (To be clearer it was amendment to that effect.)

Regardless, FS offered a valid claim that can be argued with. You gave a claim that was more vague than the limited quote you selected as if it were the only thing Obama ever said on border security.

Quite correct, old chap.

You found them, when you helpfully copied half of the Obama-Biden site into the thread. That's why I used the first-person, plural personal pronoun 'we' instead of the first-person, singular personal pronoun 'I'.

No, I found a summary. It's not the sum total of everything Obama said on the subject. You found nothing and refused to clarify your argument on request. Instead you whined and insulted and are still whining that in a debate some dared asked you to actually explain your vague comments.

If you don't feel like debating don't enter one, but don't throw hissy fits because someone asked you to explain your comments.

Now that I have a specific complaint, I offered more clarification of Obama's position as offered by the voting record he held up. I know you think it helps your argument that I can't quote everything Obama has ever said in the limited space we have, but that doesn't mean you can lean on that natural limitation like it makes your argument valid. The only way to have a reasonable argument is for you to be specific about what you'd like to see him be more specific about. You still haven't. You had to wait for someone who is more capable to offer something up for you.

Unsurprisingly, rather than addressing the voting record, I've offered on that specific point, you'd like to continue complaining that someone dared to challenge your unqualified comment about Obama being vague on immigration.

Arguing with "Obama didn't specify how many people he would add to border patrol" is quite easy. Either he really didn't and I can't find any examples of him being fairly specific on the issue or I can reference, let's say, a bill Obama voted for and later referenced that he supports that uses national guard troops for border patrol. (To be clearer it was amendment to that effect.)
That's not a policy pledge. It may well be Obama's planned strategy, and he (or the relevant governmental bodies) may well implement such legislation, but it's not a policy pledge.

We're 'discussing' the Obama-Biden manifesto, which, we've firmly established (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314063&postcount=92) by now, had some fairly non-specific claims in it.

Once again, we can see this further here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/).

Now, let's get back to a proper discussion, instead of the strange spectacle of your antics.


No, I found a summary. It's not the sum total of everything Obama said on the subject.
No, it's not. But the entirety of Obama's public record, and what he pledged (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) in his election manifesto are two different things.

That's not a policy pledge. It may well be Obama's planned strategy, and he (or the relevant governmental bodies) may well implement such legislation, but it's not a policy pledge.

It's an explanation of his position, which is what you claimed you were looking for.

We're 'discussing' the Obama-Biden manifesto, which, we've firmly established (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14314063&postcount=92) by now, had some fairly non-specific claims in it.

Which are not his only offerings on the subject. You didn't claim his manifesto wasn't specific enough. You claimed he was not specific on the subject. Try not to run anyone over as you move those goalposts around.

Once again, we can see this further here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/).

Now, let's get back to a proper discussion, instead of the strange spectacle of your antics.

Amusing. You still refuse to actually address that he has been more specific, which is the discussion. Instead you continue to complain and squirm and whine and insult.

You've moved from "But little of what he said during the election was specific." to "We're 'discussing' the Obama-Biden manifesto". I know you'd like to not have that you're now trying to change your argument because you've been shown to be wrong and want us to move away from it before anyone notices, but you can't possibly think that's going to work.

We're discussing Obama's positions during the election. His position is that he supported that bill. The bill offers a lot of clarity as to what Obama would like to do on that issue. It's not possible for the "manifesto" to include every bit of information on everything he ever talked about or will talk about in regards to his policies. It simply wouldn't be navigable. However, he's held up his record as an example of where he's going and on this subject it was quite specific. You don't get to cut parts of his campaign out of the topic just because it proves you wrong. Rational thought doesn't work that way.

It's an explanation of his position, which is what you claimed you were looking for.
It can't be a further explanation of his position, as it was a vote he cast prior to the election. Tallying up a candidates previous votes does not equate to their policy pledges. He may view it as the correct policy to adopt, but he didn't note it as a policy commitment.

You didn't claim his manifesto wasn't specific enough.
No, I certainly didn't. Glad to see you're finally grasping the point you should have got three pages ago.

You claimed he was not specific on the subject.
And he wasn't; not in outlining what 'change' he would bring, what policy he would pledge.

You've moved from "But little of what he said during the election was specific." to "We're 'discussing' the Obama-Biden manifesto"
When you said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14313838#post14313838) "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering", you were discussing Obama's proposed policy changes with FS. As we are still discussing his policy manifesto, I have not moved one jot. (EDIT: And I never said, "little of what he said during the election was specific". If this is the argument you are arguing against, you're not arguing with me. I'm arguing that not all of the 'change' Obama offered, the policies he said he'd enact, were specific.)

Although an individual's voting record is a great indicator of their stance on policy, it doesn't add up to their policy pledges. There are undoubtedly masses of Bills that previous Presidents voted on before ascending to the Presidency upon which they hardly acted upon, and did not include in their manifestos.

This is a fun little roundabout you've constructed for yourself, and I'll have one more go before I'm off to bed:

Claim: "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering."

Answer: Not on everything. (see here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/).)

It can't be a further explanation of his position, as it was a vote he cast prior to the election. Tallying up a candidates previous votes does not equate to their policy pledges. He may view it as the correct policy to adopt, but he didn't note it as a policy commitment.

So you don't count his speeches where he offers up his past votes as evidence of his position as explanations. Got it.

No, I certainly didn't. Glad to see you're finally grasping the point you should have got three pages ago.

You're claiming that now, though. Three pages ago you didn't even mention his manifesto, so it's pretty clear you're not even making sense here.

And he wasn't; not in outlining what 'change' he would bring, what policy he would pledge.

Again, I've shown you explicitly that he referenced his previous votes as evidence of what his policies are meant to convey. It wasn't an accident he referenced it. You suddenly decided that if it's not in his manifesto it doesn't count.


When you said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14313838#post14313838) "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering", you were discussing Obama's proposed policy changes with FS. As we are still discussing his policy manifesto, I have not moved one jot. (EDIT: And I never said, "little of what he said during the election was specific". If this is the argument you are arguing against, you're not arguing with me. I'm arguing that not all of the 'change' Obama offered, the policies he said he'd enact, were specific.)

Although an individual's voting record is a great indicator of their stance on policy, it doesn't add up to their policy pledges. There are undoubtedly masses of Bills that previous Presidents voted on before ascending to the Presidency upon which they hardly acted upon, and did not include in their manifestos.

This is a fun little roundabout you've constructed for yourself, and I'll have one more go before I'm off to bed:

Claim: "[Obama] was very specific about what change he was offering."

Answer: Not on everything. (see here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/).)

Earlier in the post you said you weren't talking about his policy manifesto before. Now you're claiming that you are and you've not moved. Interesting that.

EDIT: Yes you did say that. It's a quote. There was more to it and you were talking about something specific at the time, but it is a direct quote I copied from one of your posts.

Meanwhile, you once again try to pretend that his website is the only thing he's said on the subject. Obama has referenced his specific record on this subject as evidence of the position he CURRENTLY holds. It's not just some past position. He was telling people to look at that record to determine whether they support his position. You can try to pretend that's not relevant, but you claimed he was inspecific during the election. You've changed your claim because I made you look silly.

Let's review -
He was very specific about what change he was offering.
Only on certain issues.

For many (most?) things, foreign policy included, Obama offered ¬Bush, but didn't go into many specifics.
Note: You don't mention anything about his manifesto nor do you talk about anything other than policy. It says nothing about the word you've suddenly added so as not to have to other specific points about what policy he supports.
Foreign policy, especially "American Leadership" throughout the globe and The War Against Terrorism?

The accountability of financial institutions?

Immigration and 'border control'?

What, specifically, he means by 'investing' in renewable energy?

In all of these issues, Obama promised action, and promised a differing tack that the one Bush has taken. I'm not questioning that his will be (in some way) a different one to Bush's, nor that there will be actual action. But little of what he said during the election was specific.

Note: See there, you did actually state that quote. You should really try to pay attention to what you say. Meanwhile, notice again, you're referencing what he said during the election. Not the same argument you're now making.

He was specific, very specific on some issues, but not on others. I'm not evaluating the man, just observing.

Again, no mention of committments but just another claim that he was never specific on these points.

Your turn. Please show me anywhere other than the last page where you were actually using the argument you've suddenly adopted about how only the things in his "policy manifesto" count. Go ahead. I'll wait. I'm certain you can. It's probably invisible in some of those posts. You were certainly talking about the whole time and I just need for you to highlight it for me.

And we get down to the point. That's what I wanted to see. It's not that he isn't representing change.No, it's that he isn't representing change.

It's that you disagree with Obama and wanted him to choose people who are closer to what you'd like. It has nothing to do with no change and everything to do with you wanted him to do what you want.What I want is one specific example of how he could represent change, yes. It is, of course, not the only one.

I'm going to ignore the rest of nonsense where you try to pretend that you can look at one particular aspect of what people like about Obama without considering EVERYTHING that people supported.Of course you can look at one particular aspect of what people like about Obama without considering everything that people supported. It's nonsensical to claim otherwise.
How many polls have there been done for prior elections where people were asked why they voted the way they did? Recall the "values voters" poll? That was the epitome of looking at one particular aspected of what people liked about a candidate without considering everything that people supported. Given that it's quite common to do so, there's no reason why anyone else couldn't do it either.

So you don't count his speeches where he offers up his past votes as evidence of his position as explanations.
I don't count past votes as policy commitments, unless explicitly stated.

That seems eminently sensible.

Three pages ago you didn't even mention his manifesto
Manifesto=policy pledges='change'.

Again, I've shown you explicitly that he referenced his previous votes as evidence of what his policies are meant to convey.
So are we to take every single vote Obama has voted on as explicit Obama-Biden policy pledges, i.e. will Obama enact every policy he ever supported in the Senate?

EDIT: This conversation is unnecessarily heated, and I'm sorry. I felt your reply ages back was a flippant remark, but I shouldn't have called it, nor you, immature. Sincere apologies.

So are we to take every single vote Obama has voted on as explicit Obama-Biden policy pledges, i.e. will Obama enact every policy he ever supported in the Senate?

I wouldn't make such a bold prediction.

There's no way he can enact everything he's advocated. Much of it has little to no chance of surviving Congress.