Detailed comparison of Obama & Edwards
Kossak RenaRF, who supports Obama, wrote a long post over on dKos dated Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM PST, which begins,
I am sick to DEATH of seeing people - individuals who I would have otherwise said I found intelligent, well-read, and thoughtful - knocking Barack Obama for being all hope without substance behind the oratory. Have you finally sunk so low in your blind advocacy of not-Obama that you can’t simply go out and read and recognize that Obama HAS positions on the issues, positions which you can actually read?? Shame on all of you for picking up a Rovian smear and propagating it into this forum.
So I’m going to give you a summary of Obama’s POSITIONS vis-a-vis Edwards’ POSITIONS so that you can no longer say that you weren’t made aware that each actually HAVE THEM. I’m sorry to leave out Senator Clinton, but this is addressed primarily to the Edwards supporters, since they are so quick to spout the “hope isn’t a policy!!” smear.
For the full analysis, see the link.
I’d be interested in seeing how many of these positions Obama has announced as his own were developed before John Edwards published his positions. We’re at the stage of the primaries where the candidates are freely stealing from each other, just like Kerry did in 2004. It is part of the normal process of seeing your opponent’s best talking points, and coming around to the same positions. Edwards has already had an enormous impact on the positions of both Obama and Clinton.
Obama is talking a lot, as Clinton is, about “reaching across the aisle,” to work with Republicans. So far, that hasn’t worked very well. Obama is running a “post-identity politics” campaign– an interesting effort. I would just like to know who he is actually proposing to work with.
Bob
![[PDA - Heathcare NOT Warfare - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/HealthNotWar_final.jpg)
Bob,
I read the lengthy comparison and I think it is amazingly fair for what it does, which is to examine voting records and position papers. I think the writer is a bit too forgiving of Obama’s support for nuclear power, but that is a (semi-)minor quibble.
Where I think the writer errs is by not recognizing that the stump speech of Obama IS relatively empty, whereas Edwards’ is full of his vision of economic justice. To my mind, the “social contract” forged between the voter and the candidate is articulated in the candidate’s core message. Obama is saying “We need change.” “We need to come together, regardless of Party, to make America great.” He then goes on to imply that voting for him will prove that America is great, which is a bit much for me to swallow.
Edwards’ basic message is the America fall short of its greatness because the political system and the economy serves the interests of the large corporations and ignores the needs of work-a-day Americans.
Despite any position papers, Obama is articulating his “campaign promises” in a way that gives him maximum flexibility should he be elected. Edwards pledges he will work to restructure both the economy and politics in the interests of working and middle class faimilies. He is not afraid to say that he supports unions and regards their strength as a key to working class uplift.
Karl Popper said that a statement cannot be considered “scientific” unless it is “falsifiable”, that is, unless there is a means of testing the assertion against observation or experimentation which might otherwise show it to be false. (Frosty is the philosopher here, so he can easily improve on my language). Obama’s basic message holds him to no standard. His basic campaign promise is EMPTY of moral, or political, content.
I recommend that anyone who is impressed with Obama’s oratory listen to Martin Luther King to get a clear idea of how vacuous Obama’s words really are. Oh, he can get the cadence and rhythms down, but where is the content. Folks can listen to Dr. King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam” which was re-aired on MLK Day, this past Monday. I listened to it as I drove down to the start of the parade. It drove home to me what is SO unsatisfactory and UNinspiring about Obama’s oratory. You can listen to Dr. King’s moral and social vision here“Beyond Vietnam”
Obama’s campaign reminds me alot of the Robert Redford film from 1972, The Candidate.
I recommend people read that wikipedia synopsis of the film and see if it doesn’t apply here.
Dr. King’s message has been sanitized by the corporate media to a point where conservatives are using him against affirmative action. If Dr. King himself were to try to deliver any speech other than “I Have A Dream,” he would likely be ejected from the stage of MLK Day celebrations across the country. Dr. King was a peacemaker, by being a troublemaker. He confronted misused power politely, but firmly.
Edwards has more of the prophetic voice in him, than does Obama. Kucinich, of course, is the one most consistent with Dr. King’s unapologetic struggle against “giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.”
Can anyone really imagine Obama having the courage and integrity to acknowledge the United States is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”?
Comment by bartman — January 23, 2008 @ 4:51 pm