Quite a large number of the Contract Cleaning/Commercial Cleaning Services companies are now offering a service to domestic customers. The type of service they offer is one off spring cleans and or regular weekly cleans....

The point of my post was simply that Hillary and Obama are similarly vague on specifics (he is one HELL of a lot more eloquent, I think we can all agree on that)

But here's a dose of reality (OK the joke you asked me to insert here): Everybody but you and me hates Hillary... Except for those she is voting with when the political winds are blowing (Iraq for instance)(my own personal pet peeve) And then I am merely disgusted with her. You? (This is an honest question, I put no words in your mouth)

Honestly Tlaloc, I do not know why you feel you are being "put" in Hillary's camp, or even less why you feel I am being "Hyperbolic"... When what I said was, NEITHER had any real substance in their above referenced statements. Yeah, I picked on her statement. Why? Because her words were "full of sound and fury, signafying nothing" (see, I even read a little poetry from time to time)

Look, whether you or I like it, substance does not get one very far in a primary election. For those of us who care, we have to DIG. (and no, I do not like everything he says... but Hey... when did anyone agree with everything I thought to be right???)(and I AM right ;-)

As to why he would get further than her in dealing with Rep congressman???? Where have you been for the last 15 years? Thay hate her, OK, ok... I exagerate when I say "they", but you have to admit, even among those who don't "hate" her there is very little respect for her (she folded like a pair of treys against a full boat on the Iraq vote.... even when she had a royal flush)(if only she had read the Iraq NIE)(if only she had had the balls to stand up and say "No.")(she was afraid of "appearing" weak.... little did she know that is exactly what she demonstrated), For Obama, they do not know what to make of him. Maybe he is just another liberal demagogue (who, whether they like it or not, has 60-70% of the voters behind him?)(OK, I dream here) But maybe, JUST maybe he will listen? He has listened to others...

Yeah... I bet on a roll of the dice. But as an independent (with a decidedly liberal bent)(a subject for a different post) I make no apologies. I bet on a winning hand, maybe I was wrong, but I knew it was not a losing hand (HRC).

The times they are a'changing. I honestly do not know where this election is going... but history will say that things will never be the same.

tom

Yeah, I voted for Obama. Why? Because for starters, he has proven an ability to work across the aisle

When? In Illinois? Okay, great. Now why would you consider that applicable to the federal government? Meanwhile Hillary has actually done very well in the senate of working with republicans (insert joke here).

I hate the fact that I come across as a Hillary supporter when I really don't particularly like her politics, but Obama supporters are consistently so hyperbolic that it rankles. If they would just confine themselves to something approaching reality we'd get along much better.

Hillary has proposed an Apollo Project-like program dedicated to achieving energy independence.

But what the H-E- double hockey sticks does THAT mean? Does she intend to fund existing energy companies research? Start ups? Tax breaks for one or the other? Both? Tax Credits? Subsidize ethanol? Renewables(Wind, solar, wave, geothermal)? Change federal laws (tax codes for one) in such a way as to enhance the profitably of renewables?

And HOW in the H-E-double hockeysticks does this all get paid for?

No matter who is speaking, it is all flowers and perfumes. If you want the meat and potato's you have to get a knife and a fork out, and cut away the fat (or pork if you prefer).

Disclaimer: Yeah, I voted for Obama. Why? Because for starters, he has proven an ability to work across the aisle (even when he and those on the other side could not come to a compromise they still appreciated his ready ear), and I am among those who beleive that divided gov't works best (like when Billy boy had to make deals with the GOP'ers in the House)(I don't give Bill sole credit for the balanced budget... just half)(co-equal branches of gov't and all that)

John McCain is willing to address the fundamental problem: the rapidly rising cost of U.S. health care. Bringing costs under control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance, save Medicare and Medicaid, protect private health benefits for retirees, and allow our companies to effectively compete around the world.

- Huckabee

The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.

Immigration - McCain

I have always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. If we have learned anything from the recent immigration debate, it is that Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make the border secure.

- Huckabee

My number one priority is to secure America's border. I opposed the amnesty bill that was defeated by the Senate in June.

Energy - McCain
...nothing there...
- Huckabee

The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.

Does anyone really see more substance in these positions? If anything there is less substance, particularly on energy policy.

But isn't it possible for a candidate to speak generously of his "vision", and also to have fully-fleshed-out policy positions?

I think the key here is that it'd be nice if the politician in question talked about *both*. That is that they made the flowery speeches but they also made the policy speeches. Unfortunately this cycle we seem to be given a choice between candidates that only do one or the other.

For starters, I think it's pretty weak to click through to issues on both their sites and then stop at the blurb, rather than making one more click to get to the specifics.

I think that's sort of the point though. With Clinton the specifics are right there- I mean RIGHT there. With Obama it's "go find them."

That indicates a difference in style, specifically the style of the campaign. Obama is campaigning in a way that is based on basically fluff. Which is not to say it isn't effective. Reagan amply proved how open the American people are to vacuous feel good messages from politicians.

What James has taken the time to do is to demonstrate (I think fairly) that Obama is more likely to talk about "hope" and "change" than is Clinton. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. However, it's not impossible for a candidate to do that and also to have a full set of policy positions. I believe that's the case with Obama.

To make the case that Obama's positions on policy are "short on details", one would have to show where Obama actually comes up short.

For starters, I think it's pretty weak to click through to issues on both their sites and then stop at the blurb, rather than making one more click to get to the specifics. It's always iffy to try to put too much weight on a short summary of a topic.

But that said, their messages in the blurb are both "I can do this" without being specific as to how. I mean, take the Immigration blurb you picked out - where's the 'plan' in Clinton's? It just says "Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform." Whereas Obama's says "Barack Obama has played a leading role in crafting comprehensive immigration reform."

If anything, the difference there is Clinton is saying "I've been saying we should do this" where Obama's is saying "I've already started". Hardly an ephemeral message from Obama, especially when one more click brings you more detail.

Those areas where he has put forth specifics he's been pretty disasterously wrong (as with his health care policy- it's incredibly bad). On top of that there really is a kind of creepy messianic treatment by *some* of his supporters that I've never seen in a dem race.

I'd note that GW Bush ran on his record of building consensus, too.

Touche. Though it's worth pointing out that it's harder to build consensus in the U.S. Senate than it is in the Texas statehouse. Ask GW Bush...

My point is just that he's running on charisma, charm and likability rather than on policy.

To a certain extent that's certainly true, which I think is partially a consequence of his being an unknown quantity to a lot of people. Also, it's tough to blame him for running a charisma campaign against Hillary Clinton. You do have to play to your strengths, after all.

Alex: I'd note that GW Bush ran on his record of building consensus, too. But, sure, that's an excellent quality to have in a president. My point is just that he's running on charisma, charm and likability rather than on policy.

My colleague Joe Synder earlier mentioned to me the differences in the Clinton and Obama websites on an unrelated matter of site design. But the sites are an excellent starting point for this.

I love how you chide the "liberal intelligensia" for curiously favoring the vacuous Obama and then you go into an "analysis" of his campaign based on the design of his website. That's real deep.

You also cherry pick sections from his website that seem to support your view of Obama as ignoring policy.

For instance you missed:

Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public
insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP
nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that
want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) create a National Health Insurance
Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health
insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for
their employees or towards the cost of the public plan ; (4) mandate all children have
health care coverage; (5) expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and
(6) allow flexibility for state health reform plans.

He then proceeds to list in detail how his plan would be implemented to meet these needs. This level of substance is all over his website on scores of issues.

If you want to play the "website game," you should contrast Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) to McCain, who offers that he's "ready to lead on day one" and where visitors are invited to watch a video about the candidate's "courageous service" as a navy fighter pilot. Substance, indeed.