That's true. But outside of Ross Perot with all his charts, can you think of a candidate that really went into in-depth policy details in commercials, stump speeches, interviews, etc? It's not like Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Reagan, etc did anything like that. Gore might have, just because he was a natural policy wonk type. I think most candidates keep details out of the general public conversation - it's almost always the opposition that brings it up because it's a way to turn people away from a particular policy change. For example, "health care reform" sounds good to everyone - but when you stress certain details, some people will be happy and others will turn away. Normally, the opposition does this. In McCain's case, he couldn't because he often didn't have specific alternatives to present (due to the white paper gap). So he focused on generic, big picture things both on his side and when criticizing the Obama side.
The stimulus bill and package might not have been enough in fact. That's the point I'm trying to make. Our economy is still in trouble and the global situation is not stable and could easily recess back into recession or worse. Right now, Obama is not able to pass more stimulus because his political strength has weakened quite a bit. Had he remained a populist and stuck with things that all americans could agree upon (or at least 66%) - he'd have the political capital today to pass more stimulus. And that is what history will judge him by - when everything comes in and plays out - did in hindsight he make decisions that were at the end of the day wise or not. If the economic troubles drag on another 3 or 4 years, no one is going to say, "Man, if that congress just worked with Obama more and the Tea Party didn't destroy him he'd have been successful" They will say, "Had he managed his public perception better and focused more on economic issues instead of getting caught in the health care quagmire he might have been able to pass economic stimulus and reform that would have righted the ship sooner rather than later" Who cares what his policy accomplishments are? That's for historians and academics. Was Jimmy Carter really a terrible president? I mean, wasn't he a victim of the economy and hostage crisis? He was extremely smart. He was right in his actual decisions. But somehow he's remembered as a terrible - if not one of the worst - presidents in history. Why?
Most try to keep the details out of the public conversation, but few of them are as successful as Obama was. (Except maybe Kerry, but he didn't stand for anything to have details on.) Even if they didn't break out charts or give their opponent a reading list, most candidates have to get into more details in interviews and debates than Obama did. Maybe he was successful mostly because of the McCain campaign's incompetence, but I'd say it's mostly because McCain had stood for most of what Obama campaigned on at one time or another, and wanted to highlight differences, so he kept harping on experience and judgment. The same was true in the primaries, once Clinton and Obama distanced themselves from Edwards.
Man you're making to much sense and that's not what some want to see on here...their looking for someone to blame, but unfortunately their looking at the wrong people. I said I was diaasapointed with conservitive democrats because I figured they were smart enough to see what the g.o.p was doing so I figures they would vote against obstructionism.
You seem to be suggesting Obama was willfully hiding the details of his plans. Considering the wealth and specificity of the plans he put out there, on his website at least, that just seems ridiculous. If he wanted to hide his plans, why post them in such detail on his site? He was in no way required to do that. Further, by suggesting that he'd even have any reason to "hide" the details of his plans, you're suggesting that his plans were bad or that the details within them were. I can promise you that if there were unsavory details in those plans, ones that would have actually seemed unsavory to the American people, the McCain campaign and the GOP national party would have been sure to alert the American people to those unpleasant details. They didn't do so, because Obama's proposals were popular, even in their details, and so they had no ammo against him and he had nothing to hide. He spoke in generalizations in interviews and commercials because that's the best way to get a message across in those short formats. But he also gave unusually detailed speeches, shared an unnecessary level of detail in debates and had unusually detailed white papers. To suggest that he was "successful" in hiding facts he never tried to hide -- and, in fact, took unusual steps to make available -- is ludicrous.
Perception is a big thing. If he manages to reform immigration with a more hostile Congress then I'll be less disappointed in his moderate policies. I don't think Climate Change will be on the table this term. Just the mention of the economy will rob him of Dem votes in Congress. It seems like he's not leveraging his majorities despite the realities of an obstructionist Republican party and a fractious Dem. coalition. No one is going to remember in 5 years the strategeries from the great Frank Luntz and how the Republicans obstructed Obama. They'll just remember where Obama failed in his promises. His goals always seem to be set for the long haul with surgical modifications rather than the whirlwind of dramatic policy changes Congress passed in the 70s when the nation faced several different crises. It almost seems like he's consciously avoiding that. Maybe he thinks the nation can't handle it. But I don't see how passing watered down legislation can be considered "historically significant" if the endemic problems aren't resolved and will still be there down the line.
