I got roasted in the comment thread about my last Hillary post (by my brother no less!).  First off, it isn’t about Hillary hating.  It’s about the real context of the MLK riff that the Traditional Media, as well as most of the public seems to be ignoring. Also how Clinton plays into that context.  But the argument of substance between candidates was brought up… 

[...] Change like freedom can mean a lot of different things to a whole lot of different people. But I haven’t seen Obama be too specific on the changes he wants. He masks his positions, and doesn’t take tough revealing votes in the Senate. At least Hillary accepts her votes and owns up to them. Just like the bullshit he tries to spout about being opposed to the war. Not shit Sherlock but you also weren’t in the Senate so your non vote didn’t really matter did it.

Annie Wagner on the Slog puts it pretty well.

The charge that Obama lacks substance is completely specious. It’s become a commonplace in this campaign, but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. The accusation stems from the relatively modest number of policy proposals Obama enumerates in his stump speeches—speeches which help set the tone of a campaign but which are not the primary source of information for most voters. (We can’t all live in Iowa or New Hampshire.) There is an enormous amount of detail available at his website for anyone who’s interested in specific policy matters.

[...] Further, let’s keep in mind that promises made during campaigns are not magically realized after a president is elected. The proportion of voters who buy into a candidate’s vision (and the enthusiasm they exhibit) has a huge impact on the feasibility of that president’s agenda once he or she takes office. I believe Obama’s reticence about wonkish detail on the stump is part of how he’s able to appeal to such a wide audience: The greater the precision with which you describe policies, the more chances a voter has to disagree with you. This was, as many have realized, George W. Bush’s exact strategy in 2000—and guess what, it worked. (Well, except for the whole winning the election thing.) He made a sharp right turn upon taking office, and thanks in part to a roll-over-and-play-dead Congress (which included first-term senator Hillary Clinton), he was able to ram his agenda through. Obama’s agenda would be both progressive, in contrast to Bush, and innovative, taking on some entrenched interests that Clinton is afraid to touch.

(emphasis mine)

This is one of the reasons why I (and I guess I’m not alone) have a problem with Clinton.  It’s not that I don’t think she wouldn’t be a great president.  She would.  And I’m prepared to vote for her if she wins the nomination and I won’t cringe one bit.  But for now, at this stage in the game, these are the things that have me leaning Obama. 

I do cringe at the comparison Annie makes with the Bush strategy.  And I don’t exactly think that is accurate in the broad sense in that Bush’s message was aimed at the conservative idealogs by his positions on abortion and his evangelical bent.  Also, and more importantly, he just happened to have a bunch of folks still ticked off about… Bill Clinton, and a bunch of 501c organizations smearing his opponents.  He didn’t win on this strategy, he won because of fear, anger and smear.

Moving on…