When people discuss why they are going to vote for Obama, it’s usually something along the lines of the fact that he is inspiring, a fresh face, that he has an honest past and has run a clean campaign. Also, many people agree with his policy positions on several issues.
However, Obama has also implied that he was going to at least make an effort to change the way politics is played in Washington. I think this is why most people want him as president. A president who just gives rousing speeches and then does either nothing or just proceeds behind closed doors as Clinton would is not what his supporters want.
Has Obama given any indication about how he would revolutionize Washington? I think the problems in our system tend to be the entrenchment of beaurocracy, pork-barrel politics, and partisan bickering leading to stalemates. The only one of these issues that Obama has addressed directly or indirectly is the third, as far as I know, and that involves his ability to attract people across the political spectrum. But, he is also the most liberal senator, and has he shown in his political history any significant efforts to be bipartisan?
So how will Obama concretely change the DC system? Or do people even think he will do that?
Two quick things (in addition to his ability to inspire a grassroots movement, which itself would be pretty important):
He will get elected having accepted less lobbyist cash than any President in modern history. He will therefore be less beholden to special interests.
He has a history of not just speaking about bringing people together, but actually doing it. The history of his capital criminal procedure reform in Illinois is pretty instructive. So is the Senate ethics reform.
Obama’s plans for executive transparency are a nice change after the Bush/Cheney “Mind your own God damned business” administration. And ties back into spending and bureaucracy.
Another way to look at it is to imagine his first 100 days plan. Since I am predicting a landslide victory he’ll be able to claim mandate and have a Congress that is mostly cooperative … at first anyway. I doubt he’ll waste that capital.
Healthcare Reform. Might be actually HRC’s plan as her bone.
Auctioned cap and trade. Also incentives for PHEVs and clean coal as energy bill amendments. Getting McCain to sign on as a sponsor would be bonus points.
Leveraging his honeymoon period on the world stage (and after Bush the world stage will certainly give him a honeymoon) into some multilateral agreements of support in the the regions of Iraq and Afganistan. Sets a defined timetable of staged redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afganistan.
I don’t know if he’ll have the backbone to get very involved in Israel/Palestinian negotiations early on … that’s a foolproof way to use up your honeymoon capital fast … but if he does then I (as an ardent supporter of Israel) hope that he takes the position that friends don’t let friends expand settlements. Israel needs it big friend to force it to make some unilateral gestures of significance IMHO. But let us not hijack this thread.
Longer term I see some personal travel into Africa and his being able to compete better there for influence with China just on the basis of his personal story.
BTW, while I’d be happy if he really was that liberal, he isn’t (despite one magazine’s claim that he is) nor that revolutionary. He is a slightly left of center pragmatist who is good at getting people to find a common ground and then building on it. His changes will be less revolutionary than incremental. A lot less focus on the forever election cycle and less partisanship as the sole focus. Those transparency proposals already linked.
Getting out of Iraq would be a pretty nice change. So would getting rid of the tax cuts for the rich, trying to get somewhere on health care, stopping the odious wire tapping tactics and the rehabilitation of the USA’s world image.
Really, though, the best change would just be ridding the White House of Bush and relieving the right wing of all its power for a while.
[ul][li]Start with the Coburn-Obama Bill to Create [an] Internet Database of Federal Spending, also known as the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, that requires full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds. It resulted in the creation of this website. [/li][quote]
“By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will help make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens,” Obama said. “It’s both unusual and encouraging to see interest groups and bloggers on the left and the right come together to achieve results. This powerful grassroots alliance shows that at the end of the day, Americans want to see Congress work together to get something done and not continue to engage in the partisan gridlock that so often brings Capitol Hill to a grinding halt.”
[/quote]
Another aspect of why this bill is reflective of how Obama will deliver change is to look at his co-sponsor on it. If you aren’t familiar, see this post to understand the significance of this odd pairing. Senator Obama has a history of reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans to get legislation passed. The legislation Richard Parker (who I still owe a coke!) linked to is another excellent example of this.
[li]Check out his Blueprint for Change. It’s a 64 page document that outlines each of his proposals, what he intends to accomplish with them and how he plans on implementing them.[/li][li]Read this blog entry called I Refuse to Buy Into the Obama Hype. Don’t let the title deceive you. This woman did a great deal of research on the Library of Congress website to compare the legislation introduced, sponsored and/or co-sponsored by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is not the typical list that tries to paint Hillary as re-naming buildings and parks while extolling the long list of major bills by Obama. It’s actually quite balanced in its presentation. [/li]
Primarily, what it concludes is that, while it’s obvious that Hillary Clinton cares a great deal about children and health care issues, and works hard in the Senate on legislation on those issues, her scope is much more narrow than Obama’s. But more importantly, his legislation appears to have not only broader scope, but much wider acceptance and cooperation. More Senators sign on to co-sponsor Obama legislation than Clinton legislation, and more of his work gets passed. Here’s one example from that cite. . .
It’s probably one of the most thoroughly researched and even-handed looks at their legislative career that you’ll find out there. I think it should be a “must-read” for everyone who intends vote in this election.[/ul]
These are my core views as well. On the Iraq ticket, we can expect a withdrawl, but a continued presence there and in Afghanistan. Not occupational presence but more of a peacekeeping presence with the UN. In all it’s going to be exciting to see his changes and how they affect the commoner like myself.
Hell, I’ll be happy with a man who can talk into a camera and not look like a wide-eyed beatnik-redneck wondering where’s charlie.
I wonder about that. Obama is walking into a war with no foreign political experience under his belt. The large majority of the US military seem to believe in the cause, and seem to be finally making some advancements with their surge thingy. Certainly to pull out now would render Iraq an utter disaster and lost cause, further fracturing our Mid-East image (It would probably make us feel bad too). So, I have to imagine he would be pretty cautious about a severe troop withdrawal. If not, he’s a fool in my opinion. As for UN peacekeepers, Iraq is far too volatile a situation to leave in the hands of useless soldiers who can’t even initiate combat should a Sunni-Shiite civil war break out. I feel like the troop withdrawal is just something Obama says because people want to hear it, you know, like a politician.
Obama’s sec. of defense and appointees will run the withdraw and it will be calculated just like any other tactical move done by his administration. It’s not like Obama steps in office and we fly our boys and girls home from Iraq. It’ll be a slow calculated withdraw.
It’s not a war. it’s an occupation and it has to end. Period.
What makes you think that?
The escalation (it’s an escalation not a “surge.” which is not a military term but a political buzzword chosen to make the escalation sound more temporary than it really is) serves to hold down some violence in some areas only as long as it’s in place. It’s not working to do anything over the long term. The warring factions are just waiting us out and fighting around us.
It’s a disaster and a lost cause no matter what we do and who gives a shit anyway?
STAYING in Iraq is what hurts our ME image. That’s what recruits more terrorists and causes the Muslim world to resent us.
It would make me feel terrific. and I wouldn’t be alone.
It’s going to happen and he has a specific plan for a phased withdrawal. The civil war is inevitable and already happening. All we can do is add Americans to the body count. We had no defensive reason to go in there and have even less defensive reason to stay there (staying there actually increases potential terrorist threats to Americans). There is nothing to win there and no choice but to get out.
Keep in mind that Bush had a history of getting rid of senior military guys who were against the war, so I’m not so sure your 3rd sentence is relevant. And my bet is that whoever sits in the WH is going to find out that we can’t exit Iraq entirely for a long time. But… I think it’s imperative that we start taking our troops out, even if very slowly, to get the Iraqi politicians off their collective asses and make them get some work done. As long as we look like we’ll be protecting their complacent asses indefinitely, they have little incentive to make any real progress.
Diogenes - I think that based on various military people I’ve talked to. To be fair, many are high ranking and probably tend to fall in line with their given orders. I agree that the war was bullshit, we never should have gone there, but I think it’s fucked up to just cause a huge mess and then say, “Oops, I gotta get out of here… sorry.” I’m all for a phased withdraw, but I’m hoping it takes longer than a year.
A lot of people say that Obama’s rhetoric is too abstract, talking vaguely about hope and change, but I think that’s what we need right now.
It’s hard to change anything unless attitudes change. Americans are generally cynical about government, and they’re mostly right to be, but how much good does that attitude do us? If people think the government can be a force for good in people’s lives, then it can be. If they think it’s an evil intrusion into our lives that ought to be cut down and drowned in a bathtub, then it will be. Attitudes drive reality.
After eight years of GWB, I think a lot of people are ready to feel good about America again, and if Obama can help us do that it will be a bigger success than any specific policy proposal could be.
I think it appears that way because that’s what the media is feeding to us. They want soundbites and headlines and never really want to dig into the specifics of what he’s saying.
It doesn’t take too much effort to dig a little deeper (like the links posters gave here) to find the meat of what he’s promising. I wish the media would do it.
Just as an example were the 60 Minutes interviews of both Obama and Hillary. They were such fluff interviews with questions like “What do you think of the other candidate? Is it hard to campaign a lot? Where did you grow up?” Not a single question like “How specifically are you going to handle this specific issue?”
This sounds like magical thinking to me. If 90% of the American populace were moral angels nothing substantial would change outside of increased protests. But that’s why tear gas and riot shields were invented.
Reagan made Americans “feel good” about themselves again too. Pardon me if that phrase terrifies me.