The argument I attempted to make here wasn't that Obama didn't offer laundry lists. It was that in doing so, he seems to move beyond recitations of problems and solutions to actually connect with the people and the guts of the items he lists. If you listened to his speech from Madison last evening, for example, his laundry list consisted of mini vignettes you could see in your mind without devolving into tedium. In short, Obama can use his laundry lists to connect with people and convey a message. Clinton, though obviously gifted in many ways, doesn't seem to share this gift.

As to whether this is a time of crisis or not, I didn't say. What I said was that there is a widespread perception of crisis and then indicated why that perception exists.

Obama has deficiencies as a candidate, most notably that he has yet to convince me that he has a strategic vision for US national security and foreign policy. But he is an extraordinary communicator.

Thanks for your comments.

True. Very, very true. Her attempted health-care takeover in the early 1990s and the arrogance, conceit, and other misbehavior of hers accompanying it were the principal motivator for the 1994 elections. We don't want more Big Government; we want much, much less. (Does McCain really, honestly offer us much less, or simply less growth than the Democratic candidates would pursue?)

But you are onto something:

“Some will say that people bought flash over substance.”

“The laundry list of concerns is mind-numbing. But what voters are looking for in times like these isn’t someone who simply lists their problems with attached solutions. They want a president who seems to connect with them and who can inspire them.”

In other words, buying flash over substance.

The Argument was that Senator Obama was not promising a grocery list of goodies from the government when he is doing exactly that. He however says it in such a way that it does not sound like a shopping list. It goes along with his promise to work together.

I think people should remember he is a Harvard trained attorney who has learned to say things that can be misinterpreted by others for his benefit. He is in the same league as Bill Clinton in that respect.

This may not be fair. I'm not endorsing or condemnin people's sentiments, only analyzing them.

In 1960, as has been noted many times, people who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on the radio gave the edge to Nixon. But those who watched the debates, a far larger group of people, said that Kennedy won. Somehow, in spite of his patrician remoteness, Kennedy connected with the viewing audience.

Who comes across as an effective, caring communicator may have little do with how effective that person would be as president. (Although I do believe that being a good communicator is a tremendous asset for a president or would-be president.)

Hillary Clinton, for all her undeniable gifts of intelligence and perseverance, is not connecting with enough people and is coming across as a conventional politician in a year in which voters are thinking unconventionally.

I hope that this clarifies what I was trying to say here.

Mark Daniels

Senator Obama talks about affordable health care while knowing that many people are hearing free health care paid for by the government (meaning white white folks).

Senator Obama is promising higher pay without discussing how the federal government can make wages increase faster than inflation.

Senator Obama promises free college education without discussing the dismal preparation that most public school students receive and without mentioning that the first and second tier universities (the types that he attended) have admitting 10 to 20% of their applicants.

Senator Obama talks about balancing the budget (while starting massive new entitlement programs) without discussing either budget cuts or tax increases. Isn't that something that the Bush Administration is very guilty of?

Senator Obama wants the government to guarantee pension promises from private employers without discussing the mechanisms and without discussing the mechanism.

Senator Obama wants to discuss increasing the average pay of job and increasing employment opportunity without discussing how open borders and unlimited immigration adversely impact jobs, pay, and working conditions.

If you look at the text of Senator Obama's speech, it is full of very vague promises without a single word about how to accomplish any of it. After 7 years of the Bush Administraiton, shouldn't the citizens of the U.S. except a president who does his homework and makes specific proposals instead of empty promises?

I've never said who I would vote for. I believe that if you surveyed all of my posts on political issues, you would be unable to detect who my preferred candidates have been.

Hillary Clinton is an intelligent and, in many ways, savvy person. She may still win. As Stock Boy says, she can still win. (And my skills as a prognosticator are far from omniscient!) But, at present, she is losing and it appears that the calendar, momentum, and financial war chests are moving to make Obama the Democratic Party nominee.

By the way, JFK, who was, in many ways, a restrained patrician in his public persona, never slapped people on the back.

Thanks for your comments.

Stock Boy:
I think that you identify one thing that causes people who might even be disposed to voting for Clinton to instead go for Obama. I've never known a candidate disliked so consistently by so high a percentage of voters to be nominated, let alone elected, president. Democrats are hungry to win this election season. Obama isn't perceived so negatively by the electorate and has the chance to build a new Democratic coalition.

pacatrue:
You're right that the cartoon presents an obscure film reference. The thing carries the freight without the allusion. But perhaps the artist felt it was important to give attribution.

Thanks so much to you for your comments.

Mark Daniels

But certainly she is losing not only because people like Obama more, but also because people dislike her. Up to half the American people have said they would never vote for her, so when she was leading she could only go down in the polls. Whether she can rise up and challenge Obama is yet to be seen. But for either candidate to get to that magical delegate number will be difficult and I wouldn't be surprised if the super delegates will make the final decision. Since she and Bill are both very powerful and influential, it will be a very interesting convention.

But hey the people get what the people want. I just have this nagging doubt that the JFK analogy may well be a fitting one. And I think you will be shocked at how little the Republicans give a damn about your thoughts of crisis and how little they will give a damn about cooperating with Obama.