<<Where is the substance in blank slate Obama.>>
Where does "blank slate" really come from? We know his academic record. We know he chose to come to Chicago to work as a community organizer rather than take a job with a six-figure salary which is always waiting for any former editor of a law school review, even a black one. Maybe even, especially a black one. And we know that the people he worked with as an organizer had the highest possible opinion of him.
So I would say, on this "blank slate," I read: extraordinary intelligence, diligence, hard work, ability to manage people, ability to organize communities, interact with government and a concern for and desire to uplift those NOT blessed with wealth or social advantage. To fight for them, to give them a better life. I read, on this 'blank slate," excellent analytical and problem-solving skills. I see and hear with my own eyes and ears, excellent oratorical and persuasive skills. And most important of all, I see on this blank slate WISDOM, and JUDGMENT in his opposition, against the main current, to the quagmire of the Iraq War, which so many politicians, almost all of them, on both sides of the Congressional aisle, endorsed either out of dull, sheep-like obeisance or, knowing it was wrong, out of cowardice, out of fear of being labeled "unpatriotic."
So spare me the "blank slate" bullshit. Please. I know about as much about him as you do and it's enough. He is no "blank slate."
<<Where substance in his make up homeworks on economic policy where he basically copied Dodd and Pelosi's notes and threw in his platform( not to implemented now of course) to boot.>>
Honest to God, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I don't know enough about the subject to determine if he copied Dodd's and Pelosi's work or not, but what the hell difference would it make if he did? Is it not possible he reviewed other plans before he formulated one he could endorse? What is the point of reinventing the wheel? This was a problem that required a solution, not an academic test of his own knowledge. People want to know where he stands. Of course he would try to avoid reinventing the wheel. He looks at Pelosi's and Dodd's work, and if it made sense, he endorses and/or adopts it. This isn't creative literature where each artist's work has to be unique. There may only be one solution to the problem, and if there is, should he endorse a plan that doesn't contain the correct solution just to appear original? You are not making any sense at all. Your objection here is totally spurious, of no merit whatsoever. It's ridiculous.
<<One day before he announced his plan he was promising to cut spending. WHere is the substance in that.>>
Cutting spending is a legitimate goal. When he finally had a plan he could endorse, perhaps it made cutting spending more difficult, perhaps not. Where is your evidence that the plan and the spending cuts are mutually exclusive?
<<Brass knows his guy is smoke and mirrors. He just thinks in this day of superficiality that is all it will take.>>
"Smoke and mirrors" I would think is what it takes to make Insane look "Presidential." His criminality brushed under the table, his advisers' and managers' intimate connections to corporate wrongdoers and frauds airbrushed away, his fucking God-damned stupidity played down, never mentioned, just like his vile and profane outbursts, his "heroism" played up to the max, including his phony "torture" stories - - you want smoke and mirrors? see John Insane, he's got smoke, he's got mirrors.
Sadly he may be right.
