Obama now needs to put 'meat on the bone' - DEFINE HIS POLICIES!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Obama needs to hit the big 3 - the ECONOMY, IRAQ WAR, HEALTH and maybe the fourth education. He has to define what he going to do about the ecnomy, ie. the deficit, the housing crisis, the increasing number of foreclosures, the job losses, the unsteady stock market, China. That he will help industry, small busineses, not raise the taxes of the have nots. He has repeat and repeat the unfairness of access to healthcare. The Iraq war. He's got to get the beef in now.

[wndycty]

1. He hinted at that this morning on THE TODAY SHOW and MORNING JOE

:kick:

[rodeodance]

3. yes, it has hit him that Glitter will not do.

[ellacott]

2. At first I thought you were talking about his weight

I do agree that he has to be more specific about his policies.

[tekisui]

4. He mentioned Iraq, finally, in his speech last night.

He should really drive that home.

[robcon]

5. Putting "meat on the bones" won't get him elected.

Specific policies and programs are what people who are trailing in elections provide to snipe at the leaders.

If you are in first place (or share first place) platitudes and speech-making win primaries/elections, and gaffes and errors are what lose them. (Politics 101)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. change and yes we can

I agree we have 'an American Idol' style media coverage but I think the voters on the ground is still need to know what their candidates stand for. I don't think Obama has made any errors or gaffes.

[iconoclastic cat]

8. Okay, but it would be nice for those of us who want to see them.

I mean, I shouldn't have to hunt to find out exactly what he's planning.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. the mainstream voter doesn't generally get to his website

all they see is a few snippits on the TV news or an article in the newspaper. Most of it has been about not about issues over the last few days.

[robcon]

10. go to his website.

He's got plenty of specifics there.

Most voters who want specifics on a candidate's positions want to pick apart/attack those specifics - that's why leading candidates are reluctant to make speeches with specifics.

Most voter preferences are driven by personality, e.g., trust in a person's ability, honesty, judgment and maturity, among other traits. Positions on issues, except for a small minority of voters, are less important in choosing a president, IMO, than personality.

-can they 'picture' the candidate as president?
-how will that candidate react when a crisis occurs (as it does several times in every presidency)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. the other candidates do

we see more specifcs from Clinton, Edwards and the others

[Bishop Rook]

12. For example?

I'll be perfectly honest, I haven't heard anything more than vague position statements from any campaigns this cycle. In speeches, they explain what problems they're going to solve, but not how to solve them--mostly because there isn't enough room. But there are reams upon reams of white papers on all the candidates' web sites.

Could you cite, specifically, where you think Clinton or Edwards have been specific while Obama has not?

[cali]

14. gee, because going to his web site and reading is just so onerous

what do you want, to be spoon fed?

[sam sarrha]

7. does he have anything but carisma.. we already have one just like that

[quinnox]

13. But his hope routine is what has got him where he is

Thats the problem, if he starts being specific it breaks the hope bubble which is what is keeping him afloat.

[jackson_dem]

16. It would be too little, too late if he runs on substance now

You are very astute quinnox. :hi:

[quinnox]

17. thanks n/t

[calteacherguy]

15. He's defined his policies as much as Hillary Clinton has. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Then he should fight this notion