About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Obama Gets Specific

Barack Obama's campaign has released a new Web video reminding voters that he's got specifics to back up his rhetoric. It's a response to charges that he gives an "eloquent but empty call for change," as stated by John McCain Tuesday night, and hits back at accusations made by Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"Some people say Barack Obama doesn't provide any details. They say he speaks about change and hope, but doesn't offer specifics. Well let me tell you, he's got boxes and boxes of specifics. To learn more, go to BarackObama.com, and download your own copy of 'The Blueprint for Change.' It's 64 pages of specifics."

Completely unrelated, but worth posting: Some say that Obama has issues attracting Latino voters, but recent results in Virginia and Maryland show signs of growing support. In the video below, comedian Mo Rocca, singing in Spanish, describes what Obama can do to win Hispanic support:

The video above comes courtesy of AOL's Political Machine blog.

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  February 20, 2008; 5:50 PM ET Barack Obama , YouTube
Previous: Pro-Clinton 527 Releases First TV Ad | Next: Clinton Ads: Three for Texas and Ohio


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Barack Obama has the wisdom of leadership. He demonstrates that he knows when to talk about divisive issues and when to speak of his vision for the future - uniting the populace. Lincoln did not mention the Civil War in his speech at Gettysburg. The Gettysburg Address is well studied by Garry Wills in his Pulitzer Prize winning book.....

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | February 21, 2008 7:54 PM

Oh, he finally gets specific. Has he been xeroxing Hillary's website?

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM

Obama's questioning of the relevance of Hillary Clinton's type of "experience" in confronting the new challenges the United States faces receives validation from an interesting case in American history.

It also points to why Obama's outsider status might actually be just what is needed to successfully restore the U.S. to international political creditworthiness.

Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald showed how what might have been perceived as the Great Emancipator's serious shortcomings as a war president and commander in chief actually turned out to be some of his greatest assets.

Remember, Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience--much less than Sen. Obama's--in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch. (Lincoln's experience in the military was limited to little more than two months service during the Black Hawk War.)

According to Donald, Lincoln was also fortunately unburdened by convention, precedent, and standard operating procedures in facing war's challenge. (The parallels with Obama kind of leap from the page, no?)

However, Lincoln was also a quick study who grew into greatness through trial and error in pursuing the most significant of his goals.

Lincoln also knew democracy's ancient lessons. When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, "My, how well he spoke." But when Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, "Let us march!"

"Public sentiment is everything," Lincoln noted. "With it, nothing can fail, against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of these, else impossible."

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 24, 2008 8:08 PM

In this Presidential primary, did you know that the once-progressive Move-On has stepped off the moral high road, and is using their organization to further their own personal agenda?

30% of MOVE-ON members support a different candidate, Clinton, from the one to whom Move-On has thrown 100% of their support, Obama.

Clinton will also forward a progressive agenda.

MOVE-ON has no business taking sides in this primary; either candidate will meet the membership's stated purposes.

To do justice to Move-On's progressive membership, its leaders have to stimulate debate, not quell it through one-sided activities.

If Move-On really believed in a balanced debate, its leadership would devote 30% of their e-mail resources to organizing and sponsoring Clinton events, or - even better - 100% of their resources to organizing opportunities for public debate about the two progressive candidates to stimulate voter participation and interest.

Instead, the Move-On leadership is acting with suppression, and muscling out the opposition (in this case, 30% of their own membership!) - they show the same moral bankruptcy as the Republicans they supposedly oppose.

THe Move-On leaders are no longer acting like progressives. They are acting like regressives.

We are all still waiting for them to come to their senses, and come off their power trip.

Posted by: Mike | February 25, 2008 1:49 AM

Barack Obama is a scam. According to the press and his own ego he is without fault. Truly, what has he every done wrong? Smoked pot? His papers are messy? We have been sold a false prophet here. He IS A HUMAN BEING, sorry to tell his looney supporters, and once the bubble is burst (and it will be by the GOP make no mistake) all these loudmouth freaks will be crushed and unable to go on. Because the majority of people supporting Obama aren't because they know anything about him or his policies beyond sound bites they've been fed. They are in it for the excitement, to be included, to feel they mean something. It is shallow and hallow because when reality sets in it will be over. They won't even vote. The racism and sexism used freely by these people is shameful. The lies and smear tactics should be examined by the press but they won't be.

Posted by: David | February 25, 2008 11:47 AM

So, Hillary's running her warm-and-fuzzy closing statement from the debate on TV ads in the March 4 primary states? What will happen when people compare that Hillary to the one appearing today in Rhode Island--the sarcastic, scary, pitbull Hillary? Who in their right mind would vote for Sybil for President?

Posted by: Lucky Lakeshore | February 25, 2008 8:22 PM

I've been following the democratic campaign closely. With some of the dramatic "ah ha" moments we've seen from the Clinton Campaign, something unexpected dawned on me.
We should be looking at the campaign organization of each candidate, as a whole.
These are the people, the staffers, the managers, the advisors, the spokesmen and women, who will follow the candidate into the White House and who will make up the bulk of the new administration. When we vote for a single candidate, we are in effect giving the keys to the country to hundreds, if not thousands of people, who will make decisions on a daily basis that impact us directly.
Do we want an administration where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?
Do we want another administration composed of lobbyists?
Do we want an administration that can't see over the horizon and plan contingencies, if an arbitrary line in the sand is crossed?
Do we want an administration that confuses feigned sincerity with conviction?
Do we want a ship of state that leaks like a sieve?
Do we want just another bag of dirty tricks?
Here's what I want:
The best economically and environmentally engineered car in the world, with a "100% Made in America" tag.
The same medical care as my Senator gets, at the same cost with the same premiums.
Basic elements air, water, food and shelter, that won't kill me slowly or mess with my DNA
Business transactions where a handshake means something
To travel the world without fear of being stoned to death
To engage in a conversation with anyone and assume confidently that they are intelligent and educated.
To see people on the street smiling, laughing and engaged in life, rather than beaten down by it.
To see my elders honored, respected and cared for.
A new formula: US + US Companies = Integrity + Quality
A recognition that not everybody needs or is ready for democracy or that it has to be in our image or not at all.

I think that'll do me, just fine.

Posted by: Robert | February 25, 2008 11:38 PM

Quick response to Mike.

Most people would consider a 70% majority a pretty overwhelming group consensus. To suggest that Move-On is somehow immoral for following a 70% consensus is simply ridiculous.

I understand that you are probably one of the 30% that support Clinton. I believe that one of the main problems we have with politics in this country is exactly the kind of venom you display. When we turn those that we disagree with into devil possessed mortal enemies, we become caricatures of ourselves and incapable of working to solve common problems.

This is the underlying philosophy of Obama and is why I support him. Unlike many, I HAVE read his book 'The Audacity of Hope' and examined in detail his policies as well as those of Clinton. Their ideas are not far apart. I just believe that Obama will get them done and Clinton will not. That is all.

Posted by: reussere | February 26, 2008 2:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company