I beg to disagree!!! We cannot afford to have another "on the job training" president. What is even more concerning is that he has not thought through anything. Much of what he says has been copied or stolen from other candidates. I know people like Obama; they all end up like "shrub" Bush.

Sent by Charles Torigoe | 7:38 PM ET | 02-27-2008

Let's take a look at the Obama audience.

Maybe they aren't capable of digesting a speech with substance?

It's kind of like the people who see Barack Obama as a hero are desperate people who hear what they want to hear. Translate what they hear into what they want to hear. And forget reality.

Anyway, it'll soon be over with Hillary. Barack won't have Hillary's skirt to hide behind. Then Barack has to come out into the open to meet John McCain.

Barack is sorely going to miss Hillary. He had it easy with her.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 7:50 PM ET | 02-27-2008

I really don't get this attitude. Obama has talked in his speeches about his specific policy plans concerning NAFTA, Healthcare, Foreign Policy, and more. Just because he is *also* inspiration doesn't make for empty rhetoric. I think this columnist is jumping on a bandwagon with proper reasoning. Almost as if it's cool to be cynical. Hasn't that gone out of style yet?

Sent by Gerry Bayne | 7:51 PM ET | 02-27-2008

You could make this argument about most aspects of politicking. Just because a candidate is a good debater doesn't mean he or she will be a good president; just because he is a "fighter" doesn't mean he will be a good president.

However there is something encouraging about Obama's ability to organize a grassroots "bottom-up" campaign; and something discouraging about Clinton's willingness to slash and burn a member of her own party.

Sent by Nat | 8:13 PM ET | 02-27-2008

I don't get it! All 3 candidates admit Washington is not working and want to "change" it- yet, what do 2 of them do in their campaigns? They court the root cause of Washington's ills- take special interest and corporate monies; McCain even has a lobbyist working on his campaign. Obama is the only one who has distanced himself from lobbyists and special interest groups- he is in fact delivering on his promises even before being elected, and yet he is bombarded as having "no experience". You can see his maturity and rational thinking by refusing to be baited by Clinton during the debates.
Better a candidate who is clean and honest, and has people support, than one who just promises change and goes on doing the same old things right in front of our eyes. The fear factor of Obama raising taxes is being flouted- can you imagine the benefits to ordinary citizens (who are the ones paying taxes, BTW)by elimination of "pork" and lobbyists and special interest groups?
Seems pretty straightforward to me- Obama is the logical choice- for both domestic programs as well as foreign policy attitude.
Am I missing something??

Sent by Shabbir | 9:23 PM ET | 02-27-2008

I have the same reaction - his speeches sound like imitations of great speeches, but I don't hold it strongly against him. Maybe if we actually had someone left who was still making great speeches I would...

Paul - originalfaith.com

Sent by Paul Maurice Martin | 11:54 PM ET | 02-27-2008

In reality the President is only a pivot.

The actions of an administration are carried out by those who join under the Presidential banner to carry out all of the specific jobs, duties and responsibilities of the executive branch.

The question should therefore be, "What kind of people will a President Clinton, President Obama, or President McCain surround themselves with?

The tragedy of George Bush is that he surrounded himself with incompetents and ideologues.

Of the three candidates, only Obama appears capable to draw to him the best and the brightest to serve our country. He has my vote.

Sent by Robert Grant Holcomb | 12:10 AM ET | 02-28-2008

I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED, . . .

The Financial Times, an Arch Conservative pro-business pro-war newspaper (the Wall St. Journal of Great Britain) doesn???t like a progressive Democratic Presidential Candidate.

???Nothing to see here people, move along, move along.???

However, I wonder why a journalist representing a (conservative) minority opinion in Great Britain gets such prominent treatment. Silly me I forgot this is NPR (No Progressive Reporting).

It should be noted the Times didn???t have any problem with a pro-business, one and a half term Governor (from a weak governor state), who was a failed business man and former drunk who had never left the United States, with no foreign policy experience. The Times presently is still a cheerleader for the slow-motion train wreck that is W's Iraq.

As for all the ???Obama lacks substance??? trolls, guess you guys are too lazy to go to:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Senator Obama has just as much substance as the other candidates. Please stop parroting dishonest talking points.

Sent by Ron Gordon | 10:23 AM ET | 02-28-2008

The comments of Shabbir:
"All 3 candidates admit Washington is not working and want to "change" it- yet, what do 2 of them do in their campaigns? They court the root cause of Washington's ills- take special interest and corporate monies; "

That just barely touched on the matter, but Robert Grant Holcomb's third paragraph puts the spotlight right on the issue.

It takes an experienced leader (with personal and professsional experience) to appoint staffers that will do the job (correctly, completely, without furthering their own partisan agendas).

And a freshman senator with "grand ideas", a charasmatic delivery, and good looks (youthful appearance) does NOT a good president make.

As was said in a favorite movie,
"The presidency is bigger than any one man, or didn't they teach you that ...".

And it does hold true. The president's staff has a HUGE bearing on the effectivness/ineffectiveness, divisivness/bi-partisan nature of the office.

For instance, most of the scandals in G.W. Bush's presidency can be traced back thru Karl Rove. (I'm not saying Karl started any of them, but he didn't stop them either.) As such, several people lost their jobs, (some went to prison), and everyone got upset over it.
If the next president (whomever it is)chooses a idealistic, partisan chief-of-staff, you can bet there will be trouble!

Hillary wouldn't choose anything but a partisan staffer.
Obama doesn't have enough experience to make his own decision. He'll take someone who's been recommended by DNC(some Anti-Rove).
John McCain is a moderate! He can see past the ideaistic, pompous, bombastic, partisan bu**s**t. McCain might consider someone whose been recommended, but he will judge them for himself. That's the kind of sound judgement you can get from experience!

Sent by Harold | 10:23 AM ET | 02-28-2008

I agree with Gideon Rachman that Obama's speeches are very general, and don't contain much detailed policy info. And I think this is Obama's intention, in that he realizes that people don't want to hear a 10-minute description of his proposed tax policies. That is not what stirs people. However, if you go to Obama's website, or read his book The Audacity of Hope, you can find all the detail you care to read. These two modes of communication are best used in different ways. If you listen online to Marty Moss-Coane's WHYY Radio Times interview on 2/26/08 with JOSHUA LEVY and MIKE TURK, they discuss this difference. In a speech, people want to be motivated, not educated. As Levy and Turk point out, most of our best leaders understood this, including FDR, JFK, and Reagan. And it appears that Obama understands this, too.

Sent by Jeffrey Forbes | 10:34 AM ET | 02-28-2008

So, Mr. Regan, do you agree with Rachman's "empty rhetoric" charge? Or are you just passing it along to
smear Obama?

I think it is Rachman's column and your blog that are "empty". Where's the support for Obama's speeches being empty? What's empty about all the policies and plans he discusses during his speeches? It's a bogus charge, started of course by Hillary and other rivals, and echoed by the lazy, irresponsible media (the same media that shirked its responsibilities in the lead up to the Iraq war).

I'm very concerned about getting the best candidate in the White House. McCain is too much like Bush especially in the area of foreign policy. I like Obama because he has a larger vision, good judgement (so far) and ability to reach out domestically and internationally IN ADDITION to all his policies and plans. That's what comes through in his speeches.

You can question his experience but you can question Hillary's too. And DESPITE
all her policies and plans, she is polarizing, often defensive and petty, and she comes with all the Clinton baggage. Her best argument is that
she's been around for a long time. Well, so has Dick Cheney!

Sent by Mak | 11:09 AM ET | 02-28-2008

The debates have highlighted clear distinctions between Obama and Clinton on Iraq, on the morality of war, on health care, ethics related to political perqs, on leadership and the ability to think under pressure. Many of us in the U.S. admire the prospect of a President who will strive to reclaim a working relationship with the world, and the words that set the course. We also admire the achievment of one who has lived and overcome structural obstacles of this society and is now ready to take us with him as that journey continues.

Sent by Frank Driscoll | 1:26 PM ET | 02-28-2008

Here's an observation about the richness of content in Obama's speech. Notice his argument against the view of President Bush that we are not in the midst of a recession. He claims that we are is recession which the president fails to see and the current state of economic affairs is a handiwork of Washington due to tax breaks given away to riches. He proposes in the same speech that middle class instead of the rich people should be given tax breaks (as part of his plan) which would boost the economy. Unfortunately he is as wrong as the people he is criticizing. Trying to boost economy by increasing the country's internal consumption is a short term measure. When corporates or individuals get tax breaks, they may not choose to roll the money back into economy. Even if they do, they would buy products and services offered at cheaper prices which come from other countries and thus benefiting their economy - not ours. The focus should be on increasing production of goods and services so that other nations can consume. Thus boosting our economy.

Tax break is good for my own wallet but the effect his temporary. Has someone asked the question where did the money from last break went? How much boost did the economy get?

In all politics is about talking good but not necessarily doing good. We should be very thoughtful about whom we choose.

Sent by Sandip | 1:58 PM ET | 02-28-2008

Sandip,
Tax breaks are an incentive to begin actions, not a reward to continue them.
Your last paragraph is why I'm voting for McCain.

Sent by Harold | 2:38 PM ET | 02-28-2008

Harold,
you conveniently assume what kind of people Obama would surround himself with- Like someone said, "This is what I think, and let the facts be damned..."

Fact: McCain surrounds himself with the likes of Charlie Black and Bill Cunningham. And please don't tell me he is not responsible for Bill Cunningham- after all he is steering the ship, isn't he?
Fact: Clinton surrounds herself with advisers who one day tell her to be soft and charming (The tears episode; when that doesn't work she must be aggressive; when that doesn't work, she must go negative....
Fact: Obama is the only one who has been consistent, thoughtful, and doesn't stoop to a lower level. His not having enough experience is plain hogwash.
Hell- by that token, MLK should never have dreamed- what experiemce did he have? Bill Gates should never have taken on IBM. And our founding fathers should never have declared independence- were they out of their minds??

Nuff said.

Sent by Shabbir | 7:57 PM ET | 02-28-2008

I realize no one will probably ever see this entry but it has to be said...

I, for one, do not understand how anyone with half a rational brain could support John McCain right now...

Contrary to popular belief, it is not Al Qaeda that is the biggest threat to homeland security, it is our economy. What keeps most of these country's off our backs is the old saying you can't bite the hand that feeds you. Well if we cease to be the hand that feeds then we may start looking like the meal. continueing this war without regard for our rescources put's us in an even more vulnerable state against the rest of the world most obviously China and Russia.

isn't he supposed to be the one that is strong on foreign policy? Isn't he the one who said out of his own mouth that he was not very strong on the economy? Does he even realize that we cannot continue to leverage our future as a free nation by borrowing from communist china and islamic Saudi Arabia to fund this war that we are fighting for the wrong reasons to begin with. You can't be strong on Foreign policy without being strong on economy because after all nohing talks like money.

I don't think we can fix the economy by giving tax breaks unless they come in conjunction with something else. As a matter of fact i think the best way to fix the economy is to speak to american investors and pull everyone together and say hey we have to send a message to corporations that we will not except bottom line management anymore. we will not continue to invest in companies that outsorce full factories and downsize just to inflate the bottom line. We have to start investing in companies and produst's that have strong values and treat their employees like they should be treated. We have to reward those companies that are doing the things that are going to have higher paid employees that are going to be more comfortable with spending money on more american made and built product. That will help them stay in business and motivate other companies to run business in that manner. I think that is the main reason that things have gotten as bad as they have. people invest in companies that have the bottom line that looks good without knowing why the bottom line looks good. And then your job who knows why the other company has such a good bottom line starts to do what they do because they want some of those market dollars and before you know it the people who were doing the investing now have to try to live off those investments because they lost their jobs and they stop caring about whow companies are doing buisiness and just invest in the best bottom line which only motivates more companies to do the same.

The ball is in your court America, what are you going to do?

Sent by J.A. WILSON | 12:39 PM ET | 03-01-2008

I don't understand how people have gotten the impression that Obama has run a clean, honest campaign. Even before the Wright episode, Obama's campaign was already fraught with dishonesty: from the Deval Patrick/plagiarism issue to NAFTAgate to Samantha Power revealing that he doesn't really have a plan for Iraq...Not to mention calling the Clintons racist, conveniently right before South Carolina. If Obama has really run a clean, honest campaign like some people here think, Hillary Clinton supporters wouldn't have such strong feelings against him.
Right, maybe we're just "typical white people."

Sent by Emily, Atlanta, GA | 11:10 PM ET | 03-22-2008