is a sloagan too.

We have one candidate who has already been making positive change in people's lives since she campaigned for George McGovern deep in the heart of Texas in 1972.

We have two major Democratic candidates who have been making positive change for most of their adult lives.  Now, Obama may not have been campaigning for McGovern in 1972 (he was 11 at the time), but his accomplishments in life are nothing to scoff at.

I would liken the quoted statement to:

"We have one candidate who has already been making positive change in people's lives since he started working as a community organizer helping the voiceless find their voice in neighborhoods ravished by steel plant closing in 1983."

Both statements are true, but their also pretty meaningless.  If you're going to decry "vague, hackneyed old sloagans", then you should also avoid meaningless campaignspeak.

that was a slip, i didnt mean to troll/ uprate anyone on this thread

And I appreciate that Hillary has original ideas OF HER OWN to offer us, not hackneyed old slogans that don't mean anything.

obama throws a lot of words up there, but it's all vague platitudes. hillary's policy proposals are specific, detailed, and contain a plan for how to accomplish them. for example, hers was the only health care plan with complete disclosure of where the money was coming from. obama can't even get his story straight on who gets covered with his.

This is the best you're going to get from Obama plan-wise: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlue printForChange.pdf

that you're just a stupid, f*cking lazy idiot for not having memorized Obama's policy statements that are available to you 24/7 on his website?

At least that was what I was told by mucho Obamophiles - and the reason I am now not interested in supporting him in thought word or deed.

Remember the video:  name one thing Obama has accomplished (where no Obamaphile could name one)?

How about a new video...name one thing Obama will do if elected president.  Betcha it will get the same blank stares.

Go to Obama's Home Page.  Then try to find something specific about what his stance on Roe v Wade will be in the Year 2009 should he become President.  As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing there - and I'm not reassured.  I'm to the point where I need to see a direct quote from him - or to hear him actually say it.  Maybe at Thursday's debate.

I heartily concur.  Indies, i love your spirit and your diaries. And, Andrew, you know I think the world of your diaries, your writing ability, and your positive attitude.

We desperately need a president who's savvy about the ways of Washington, DC -- won't have to spend two to four years learning just how stubborn and nasty the Republicans will be.  He has spent so little time in the U.S. Senate, and there he hasn't done very much -- I must mention his Subchairmanship of the European Affairs committee for the Foreign Relations committee -- that subchair includes NATO (!) -- and he's done nothing.  Not even a hearing.  Steve Clemons, as fair and decent a person as you can find, tried and tried and tried to get a record of any visits by Obama to European capitals or NATO.  Nada.  Steve said that Obama's Senate office could just give him Obama's passport record, and that would make it clear, but they never responded beyond vague statements that, yes, he'd been to Europe (like for a night enroute to another trip).

He may make an excellent president someday.  But he needs to work more, and learn more.

You all keep hammering that video that some poor souls put together to support their candidate- way to encourage involvement.  I guess not everyone is as perfect as Obama and his most perfect supports who are always right and perfect when they are being perfect, which is always.

Seriously, I used to be a BIG Obama fan. And if he's the nominee, I'll suck up my pride and become his biggest fan again. But that's just it... I'd like to support Obama because I know what he stands for. But as long as he continue with vague slogans and "blueprints for change" that look like they've been copied and pasted from the DLC site or some David Broder column, I don't know what to say.

Meanwhile, I wholeheartedly support Hillary now because I know EXACTLY what she stands for. I know she wants universal health care, and I know her plan for the economy, and I know what's in her energy plan. And frankly, I LOVE the fact that she's not afraid to show her inner policy wonk. That shows me right there that she really does care about all of us, and she wants to know the best way to bring about the best solutions for this nation. :-)

Hmmm, so are you saying it's boring to discuss the policy details that may actually make a difference in people's lives? And yes, I have seen Obama's campaign site. And yes, I still find it lacking. If there is any detail on his policy plans, it's detail that looks eerily familiar to what Edwards offered and what Hillary offers. I just don't see much in terms of new ideas of his own.

And if you want to get into specifics, here 'ya go:

- His health care plan isn't universal, and leaves 15 million uninsured.

- His energy plan leaves the door wide open for dirty coal & nuclear power.

- His Iraq plan isn't any different from Hillary's.

So what again were you saying?

he doesn't explain in words to those who he's asking votes.  We can also read his book, no, if we want to know anything, he can say it's in his book.  When you speak you get questions and you can debate differences.  That's the difference, and that some voters won't have the resources or the time to go through his page and figure out what it means. Reagan was the 'communicator,' no, I'd like him to communicate?  Is that one too hard to understand?  Maybe I should sign up for a seminar?