specificity v. temperament and vision

http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/21/finally-barack-obama-gets-specific-about-what-change-is/

One of the criticisms of Obama has been his insufficient specificity (I think McJoan made this statement), although Hilzoy and Kathleen and others have argued that Obama has been quite specific.

I gather that Obama is surmounting Swopa's specificity threshold barrier.

I've tended to look at matters rather differently.

I'm just not much worried about specifics, within reasonable limits.

(Update: Of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is in the details of, er, what the meaning of "reasonable" is.)

I'm more concerned about temperament and vision. Specifics are worth something, but specifics tend to be ephemeral, because policy specifics will inevitably be bent to conform to political realities.

For me, the fact that Obama decided on community organizing rather than set his sights for (what I read was) a near-certain SCOTUS clerkship says loads more about temperament and progressive instincts than policy specifics.

Put slightly differently [beats dead equine vigorously], temperament and vision give an indication of how a person will act in novel situations, or when his'r'her preferred way forward is blocked. Specifics are static and of limited predictive value.

Once I saw that HRC, Edwards, and Obama seemed to be peas-in-a-pod (w minor differences), I let specifics go and looked for other reasons to vote for or against particular candidates.

My recommendations are free and worth every penny.