Experience is what gets the job done,ever wonder why jobs want that more than pieces of paper or talk?

Bill Clinton got this Economy on it’s feet and I know his wife will do the same,you know she discusses things with him.

I have a gut feeling that Obama will not be the “savior” like the gullable people think he will be,mock my words.(if he gets elected)

I had the same feeling with Bush.

This is why he has our VOTE.

That's true. Here's how I chose the issues: I went to the Obama site, wrote down all the issues listed on the Issues page, then went to the Clinton issues page and wrote down those. For all the matches (including the qualitative ones, such as Obama:Economy::Clinton:Middle Class), I dedicated a row to them. Then I dedicated a row to each listed issue that had no match (eg, Clinton's Women, or Obama's Civil Rights--which is why I didn't notice the Clinton press release, which, you have to admit, is hard to find.)

You mention that Obama has lots of details on his nuke policy. I'm sure it's there, given the attention that issue had a few months ago, but I didn't run across it during my survey. So there are errors on both sides, owing, as you said, to the time it takes to do this.

I agree that nuclear proliferation !< rural. But then again, I think Government Reform > *, and that Energy > Economy + Health. The categories listed above reflect the CANDIDATES’ prioritization of issues (given their prominence on their sites), not mine.

Thanks for the feedback. This is interesting stuff.

I would suggest to have someone else to try and replicate your study here for inter-coder reliability, but they ought to do it blindly (given the instructions/categories, but not your results). Though, that’s work and doing this much on your own is more than most people are willing to do.

On aggregation of issues:

Yes, selective aggregation. If you wanted to aggregate in a less selective matter, we can have one category that is “domestic policy” and another that is “foreign policy”, instead, you expand domestic policy (rightfully so), while keeping foreign policy collapsed, except in one case in which you can claim an Obama victory (the Iraq war is not foreign policy?). A better assessment would expand the foreign policy category and you will have more diversity in your chart.

If you believe the global issues do not deserve their own category (global aids < disability? Nuclear proliferation < rural?), then I guess that would warrant such a strategy.

This, naturally, would inflate Clinton’s count of “in-depth” issues, but I don’t think this is an artificial inflation since these are important issues with serious implications for home and abroad. Also, not all of these issues will go to Clinton from my brief reading. Obama, though vague on the specifics, will win a foreign policy category on proliferation/nuclear weapons as he actually takes a stance on the issue and Clinton does not (except a few lines in speeches) from my readings.

Fair enough. The chart has been changed. Everyone else is free to point out errors as long as the claim isn’t based on redundant information or fluff. However,

How does my forthrightness in the foreign policy section translate into “selective aggregation”, especially when I gave that category to Clinton?

http://hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3306

Oh I see. That looks like more than 0.

Matt’s point is the web is an ideal medium to convey more information about “solutions” and Hillary’s campaign is either at best failing to realize this or at worst actually has less “solutions” than Obama’s campaign.

Either way Clinton’s comment reeks of dishonesty in light of Matt’s research when it would have been trivial for her to provide just as much, if not more information on her “solutions” to the Internet community. She shouldn’t be claiming to have more solutions than speeches if she hasn’t made the obvious step of providing those solutions in a cheap and valuable medium such as the Internet.