As a liberal living in Madison, I have never really found myself in the political minority. That was until recently when I found myself, a Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., supporter, wading in the middle Obama-mania that seems to have swept through Madison.
The politically charged climate is invigorating, even though I find myself outnumbered by Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., adoring fans. And I get it... to a degree. I know the man has a way with words. I saw Obama at Monona Terrace in October 2007, and the guy can deliver an uplifting speech like Freddie Mercury could deliver a power ballad.
Undecided at the time, I remember musing to a friend after the event, Yeah, but what did he really say?""
In the spirit of full disclosure, as a skeptic by nature I find myself exceedingly resilient to sweeping rhetoric, though this can be overcome by adequate substance to back up the pretty prose. With Obama, style seems to trump substance - lacking are concrete and detailed plans to supplement the promises. It's a politics-as-usual, buzz-marketing campaign filled with vague descriptions and soaring rhetoric as policy-anemic speeches please the ear but do not inform.
Obama talks a lot about fixing the political machine, but his methods are broken as well. We need candidates who strive to educate voters to make informed decisions rather than hypnotize them with oratorical skills.
The usual response to these observations is to check Obama's website if you crave details. Specifics on his plan for Iraq withdrawal, for one, are underdeveloped.
Claiming to be ""right on day one"" does not tell us what he plans to do on day one. Clinton has already outlined diplomatic and military steps for withdrawal, and what will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops begin withdrawing.
The Obama campaign's use of the term ""universal health care"" is also misleading. His proposal does not offer universal health care, but a plan to make health care affordable by cutting premiums (which Clinton's plan also does). Obama himself admitted that 15 million people will be left uninsured.
""Fifteen million sounds like a lot,"" said Obama. ""But what they're really saying is I'll have 3 percent of the population - I'll have 97 percent covered."" Clinton, on the other hand, believes and understands that all Americans must be covered. Contrary to misleading reports, she will allow Americans the option to keep their current plans.
A favorite platitude of Obama is disdain for ""old Washington politics."" However, he too is guilty of engaging in the political tactics he claims to despise. His campaign often deploys the ole character assassination trick - Clinton is cast as the calculating politician in contrast to Barack ""Washington outsider"" Obama.
Obama regularly attacks Clinton for taking money from lobbyists. A Boston Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records showed he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a U.S. Senator and a presidential aspirant.
His campaign has countered by saying Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than in the past. However, Obama still takes money from former lobbyists and partners. According to a study by Public
Citizen released Jan. 29, Obama has 10 bundlers who previously registered as lobbyists.
It's the same distortion and murky old Washington politics to which we've unfortunately become accustomed. Obama is certainly not alone in employing them, but it is the hypocrisy of his campaign messages and his squeaky clean posturing that is disconcerting, not the messages themselves.
What of electability?! To quote New York Magazine on the pseudoscience, ""the whole exercise of backing a candidate because of his or her supposed electability is a fool's errand."" Voters ought to choose a candidate based on their policies, record and hell, even charisma is better than the mythical and immeasurable electability factor. John F. Kennedy was once anointed unelectable, as well as George W. Bush (if only).
It is Hillary Clinton who's been vetted. It is Clinton who offers detailed solutions and concrete answers rather than promises. Along with her seemingly limitless depth of knowledge on and mastery of the issues, her sharp intellect and, you got it, experience allow her to immediately address the challenges of getting us out of the mess Bush has left us in.
Like her or not, she'll hit the ground running.
Michelle Tucotte is a senior majoring in journalism. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com
