UPenn Democrats

By Barry Slaff

Obama has no substance. He’s an idealist without specific ideas, a freshman policymaker without policies– so his critics have insisted throughout both the primaries and the beginning of the general election season. Yet the contention that Obama has no substance is simply bogus; in fact, Obama offers many more specific policy suggestions on almost every issue than Republican John McCain.

The case for Obama is so easy to make that I almost feel silly making it, but here it goes: just look at the two candidates’ websites.

Yep, that’s it: just look at the websites. In particular, read through the pages in each candidates’ “Issues” section. Here you go:

Barack Obama’s “Issues” Section

John McCain’s “Issues” Section

Anyone who goes to these two websites and compares the candidates’ views should quickly realize that Obama offers a much deeper and more thoroughly thought-out platform than McCain. Take energy independence, for instance. Both candidates describe a number of possible solutions to America’s energy problems, but Obama goes into much more detail on virtually every point. A link at the very bottom of Obama’s “New Energy for America” page opens an eight-page document detailing his plan– and all eight pages are full of specifics, not platitudes. Many of Obama’s “Issues” pages contain links to such explanatory documents; on the other hand, McCain offers no such substance in statements on energy or any other issue. Even on national defense– McCain’s supposed strong point– Obama discusses “Defense,” “Foreign Policy,” “Homeland Security,” and “Iraq” much more comprehensively than McCain.

It gets worse for McCain. At least on national defense, McCain offers a somewhat respectable– if clearly inferior– treatment of the subject matter; but on other issues, Obama’s depth of analysis surpasses McCain’s by leaps and bounds. Consider education reform: Obama offers literally ten times the number of specifics as McCain, and once again, Obama’s plans really do contain specifics, not the vague ideas for which critics like to chastise him.

If this election is truly about substance, Obama will win in a landslide. Unfortunately, sound bites and headlines usually affect the outcome of a presidential election much more than the the true depth of each candidate’s platform. Significant proportions of voters still lack access to the internet, lack comfort using it, or lack enough interest to read through extensive policy positions. These are unfortunate truths, because compared to live speeches and debates, downloadable positions offer tremendous amounts of information on both candidates’ plans for this country. Obama’s campaign ought to help expose McCain’s comparative lack of substance by encouraging as many voters as possible to access both contenders’ “Issues” pages– but the nature of politics dictates that, to some extent, sound bites will probably have to do.

None of that changes one fact: if you’re voting for substance, you’re voting for Obama.