You are explaining a much more reasoned position, that it isn't about lack of specifics, but ability to deliver. Very good point, I'm going to engage you on that in a second.
But first, I must point out that your argument doesn't address the fact that countless threads and posts have been made by Clinton supporters
not saying what you are saying but actually pushing the meme that Obama has no plan, has no specifics, and that none of his supporters know why the support him.
My post, pretty much points out - again - how categorically untrue that is. And I continue to challenge hillary supporters to respond directly to that. So far, nothing except for you saying, "that's not the issue." Well, I agree its not the issue - BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.
Ok now... on to the response your thoughtful post richly deserves:
I honestly believe that Obama supporters are somewhat naive in their faith that Mr. Obama can actually "change" anything. It is no surprise that his supporters are in large part, of a younger generation. When you are young, it is much easier to suspend your reason for "hope" and "change." I call it "letting your passion over-ride your reason." It is only after living a few years that you realize that it isn't so easy to make change happen...at least not as easy as Mr. Obama would have you believe.
Why do you feel that Obama will not actually "change" anything. And I guess I should ask, what is your definition of "change?" Another poster gave a laundry list of ideologically Utopian things and declared that only those represented "change." Is that how you feel? To me the specifics I listed represent change, and none of them seem beyond the scope of any democratic president.
I guess another way to put it...
I don't want to wake up in the middle of 2009 and discover that Mr. Obama has been cashing checks with his mouth that his skill and experience couldn't cover.
Ok, I understand that. But from my perspective, I've had a great deal of difficulty accepting the argument from Senator Clinton that her experience has all been positive or effectively prepares her to be President. My reasons for feeling this way include: one, the fact that politically speaking I disagree with several Senator Clinton's decisions in Washington and feel they represented a great failure of leadership.
Two, I have strong disargeements with many aspects of the Clintonian vision for the Democratic Party and for America as presented by the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency. It would be unfair to characterize Senator Clinton by the political actions of her husband if it weren't for the fact that she is on the record saying that they work as a team and share the same political vision.
Three, and I know this might upset you, but I have to confess that frankly her management of her political campaign is not an inspiring example of how her experience has prepared her for leadership. She began over confident, declaring to the media that she would be the nominee. She/her campaign made public statements that it would all be over February 5th. When it wasn't, her campaign began to fall apart. At every stage they have been out raised and out performed on the ground. In many states, Obama had three times or more as many field offices. Hillary told the media she had no idea how the Texas primacaucus system worked and that "her people were trying to figure it out right now" - meanwhile, Obama's ground team was already totally on it, assembled and in action. I'm getting a lot of these examples from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=sloginSay what you want about the authors opinion, those specific facts of her campaigns disorganization aren't in dispute.
So when Senator Clinton tells me about her 35 years of experience and she is ready to lead on Day one, it rings hollow to me -- I have not seen any examples of that readiness through her campaign.
On the other hand, Obama and his campaign have been seriously efficient. He is the one that has had the political machine this year. And as a relative newcomer he has certainly benefited from some favorable media. But its looney to pretend that's all it is. You can look at the specifics of his ground game in states and see how his organization has totally trounced the Clinton campaign. In many states he built his ground game from nothing. It is a testament to incredible efficiency, organization, leadership and skill.
I'm sorry but to me, he looks like the one who is ready to lead on day one.