change, I haven't got any

I actually got a peek at some of Obama's policy ideas, deciding that it might be a good idea now that there's a reasonable possibility of his electibility nationally. I was not impressed on two fronts.

One, as I had previously guessed from his status as a Democrat, I did not agree fundamentally with his basic foundation, and thus found his ideas fundamentally flawed. In other words, Democrats in general tend to operate on the assumption that government is good and often offers the best solutions to problems. I do not. I'm not even convinced of the assumption that government is well-intentioned and thus good, to say nothing of its ability to offer solutions and to execute them effectively. But, let us leave that aside because it's essential that a Democratic nominee should have such a view as it is after all a principle point on their party ideology.

Primarily what I found lacking was a good deal of executed detail. It's unrealistic to expect a candidate to unleash anything more than a broad sweeping, undetailed proposal at this point in the campaigns. But there are some requirements that even these broad sweeping campaign promises have some executional measures built into it. Obama's hint at the need for such things, but have no real teeth to them. I'm not sure if this means his ideas are bad, phony, or merely incomplete. Given his overall rhetoric, it's possible, though unlikely, that they would be flexible ideas, open to change and debate as they approach a stage of legislation. But I very much doubt that they would in fact be open to radical debate and change from opposing views, as they are drawn from a fundamental view that only government 'can save America'. It's very difficult for me to find substantive proof for this conditional statement, as it likely is for many others, some of whom are in Congress. So it's still difficult to see several realities emerging from this. 1) That his candidacy is a way to 'unite the country'. 2) That his candidacy would have any impact on Washington politics and the manner of their conduct, namely that spurious interests would not dominate and determine the issues instead of reasoned debates on the floor of the House or Senate. 3) That he would be capable of working constructively and cooperatively with members of an opposing party and often diametrically opposed views. Despite his outward calm rational mien, even this last point seems unlikely.

None of this of course matters because it would appear the job description of "President, U.S." reads something like this in the media: Able to execute sharp turn of phrase to create buzz in media over some topic (media types love to sell simple watered down stories), presents views similar to those of news media editors, good public speaker, but perhaps not at real debate where one cannot appeal to a simple sound byte and incomplete or incorrect factual data - something Romney et al do frequently, has public support of prominent celebrities who will sway the dumb masses, appears independent and open-minded in rhetoric (maverick is the common term). At the moment there is really only Obama fulfilling this description, though it would seem the N.Y. media bias is rather annoyed that the fly-over public hasn't swallowed Mrs. Clinton's ability to market herself in a similar light, or rather inability. I find it mildly amusing that some of the same complaints leveled against her first surfaced in Al Gore's campaign in 2000. Robotic and un-emotional, even boring? I suppose that's because I've usually found Al to be rather boring with the same general tendency to over-state his claims. But I digress. It's difficult to know what will happen in the months ahead, but of one thing I'm convinced. Change may be a mantra this month, but it's not going to be a reality in our future.