Share
Recently, in observing the Democratic presidential primary, something came to the surface that had been clear all along but was rarely talked about.
In contrasting the two leading Democratic candidates, one has to admit that there are few substantive policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
On the issue of health care, the two have similar ideas on how to solve the problem of uninsured citizens. Basically, they both believe that more government control is necessary to procure medical coverage for those who need it.
Regarding the war in Iraq, they both believe that our troops need to come home as soon as possible and that there is no hope left in establishing a stable Iraq. Even though recent progress in the country proves otherwise, they both have come out in favor of what amounts to an immediate withdrawal of the troops. Here, the only minor difference is that Obama would probably do it even quicker than Clinton.On taxes, they both believe in letting President Bush's tax cuts expire and enacting smaller tax relief packages that are not based on the tax rate that a certain bracket pays, but on the actual income that a family makes.
Essentially, the two Democratic candidates are the same person when it comes to enacting policy. However, there is a major difference in one aspect of the candidates' backgrounds. Obama, because he is so powerfully inspirational and likeable, can attract voters of all ages and walks of life no matter what his platform may be. In fact, there has even been some talk that Obama is the liberal version of Ronald Reagan.
Because Clinton is already a known entity, she comes into the race with negative baggage. Moreover, she just can't measure up to Obama in terms of likeability.
Unfortunately for Obama, there is a major difference between him and Reagan. Because he is so exciting, he has the ability to focus very little on substance and a lot on pleasant rhetoric that sounds great but says nothing. Reagan had a lifelong, well thought-out political philosophy, which he talked about all the time. Obama tells stories about his life and about hope and ignores policy as much as he can.
In essence, Obama talks a lot while saying nothing. He says things such as workers are the bedrock of our economy but offers nothing on how he intends to fix the problem with it. He talks about hope, but at the same time he proposes programs that would make American citizens more dependent on the federal government and less on themselves.
Everything that he says sounds nice, but it doesn't match up to his actual political views. To be sure, Obama is probably a bit more extreme than Clinton; however, American voters put little credence in a candidate's political positions at this stage in the game. Because he gives great speeches and has overwhelming charisma, people just naturally like him. But once the populace finds out about his political views, they will realize just how empty he is when it comes to substantive ideas.
Leave a comment 14 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Sorry, but this is more of a rant than a column. Obama is not perfect (who is), and I agree it would be nice to see more issues brought forth publicly, but he has his platform listed on his site. You missed a whole lot concerning Hillary. Do some searches and research her a bit (i.e. JudicialWatch). To link these two candidates so closely seems rather ignorant, and shows more of am agenda than anything else. Sorry.
Reply to this Top
The point about alluding to the vague idea of 'hope' (hope for what? for whom?) and an equally vague policy platform (that is itself un-differentiated from Clinton's or even Edward's platforms) is valid - those, such as the previous reader, who do not see this are the reason why Obama continues to win. At the end of the day it is much easier to fall to seductive rhetoric than to ask the tough questions about figuring out how the future will be crafted. Can we fault the typical voter for taking the easy way?
Reply to this Top
You hit the nail on the head, Joe. To see how a real political column should look, I encourage you to read the non-rant "Keep important issues in mind when voting in primaries" from the February 12th. Definitely no agenda there...
Reply to this Top
nope, no agenda there... I'm glad to see an anti-democrat column for once!
Reply to this Top
This is nonsense what he is trying to say. WELL written, but say NOTHING! Anyway, it is a hope for CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. And if you have heard one of his speeches, he did say something about blue-collar workers : "In a major appeal to blue-collar workers, he proposed a $210 billion program to create jobs in the construction and environmental industries, after criticism that he doesn't have enough policy specifics.". It seems you are late again! This scope is actually main success key for both Obama and Clinton. He also insists to bring much more justice for "Jena 6", and so on.
Reply to this Top
Fredy, the problem with Obama and his "Change" campaign is that it leaves us lacking in the "how" department. We know Obama wants change, and he speaks very emphatically about it, but how is he going to change anything? All he seems to do is talk about change, not how he is going to accomplish it. "We're going to help middle class families, bring health care to everyone, take care of the war in Iraq..." It's all a bunch of talk with no emphasis on action.
Reply to this Top
I am glad someone has finally brought this to light. "...he has the ability to focus very little on substance and a lot on pleasant rhetoric that sounds great but says nothing. " Obama=rhetoric. From the speeches I have heard he offers all this hope, but no real way of accomplishing it. He is very charismatic and likable, unlike Hillary. Furthermore, if you do look at Obama's issues, he is arguably the MOST LIBERAL senator in the United States right now.
Reply to this Top
And herein lies the problem. Politicians always clamor about 'change' and never REALLY discuss the method by which the change will be enacted, or the end result of that change. I could stand up and offer change - how about I campaign on the anarchy platform? That would be a STARK change to the current political climate - and not one that would win any votes, because it isn't the kind of change people want. This is my main problem with Obama (his socialist tendencies notwithstanding); that he clamors for 'change' and never discusses how to enact it or what will result from it. I don't really know what sort of change he is aiming for, or why he is trying to accomplish change. I know many people are upset with the 'status quo,' but I haven't been rhetorically convinced by any argument Obama has offered that the status quo now is any worse than it will be after he's been in office for a few years. His campaign boils down to an awful lot of well-articulated emotion, but is woefully short on substance, planning, experience, and policy. That makes him a pretty tough candidate to believe in.
Reply to this Top
I guess having this thing called the "internet" is new to a lot of people. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Reply to this Top
Jimmy, the problem is that the Internet is not a tool for some people. They hear him speak on tv or at a rally and think how great everything he is saying sounds. So they don't even both to look at his issues, they just vote for him b/c they like what he said. And after looking at his health care plan I am still not exactly sure how he is going to this?! "Obama will make available a new national health plan so all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, can buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress." Again, sounds GREAT! However, he never comes out and says this is how I am going to do it. Well, I am sure he will accomplish this by further taxing the crap out of us. Sorry, I already see how much money the government takes out of my paycheck and it sucks. I cannot imagine even more being taken out to fund health care for OTHER PEOPLE. Anyway, this is just a look at ONE of his plans for his amazing change.
Reply to this Top
So, you came to your conclusion about Obama's "empty ideas" after reading his 62 page Blueprint For Change posted as a pdf on his website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Right?
Reply to this Top
TG, your tax dollars, specifically the dollars that go to the US war fund, are currently paying for universal heath care for all of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is one of the many things you get for the 1 trillion dollars our government is spending there each year.
Reply to this Top
Ben, cite me an article or law that demonstrates that, please. I'm interested to read it.
Reply to this Top
I couldn't agree more. Consider this, once you take away Obama's likeability what's left?? Nothing of any substance and McCain must be beside himself at the prospect of pointing out all the gaps in Obama's rhetoric if he gets to take him on in the general. God help us democrats if Obama is our nominee.
Reply to this Top