Its amazing to me how in a New York Times article about Obama and his recent decision to emphasize more policy discussion into his speech, they somehow can't actually discuss the details.
At a minimum the article ought to at least refer to the fact that Obama has a very detailed set of policies "Blueprint for Change" that is a 64 page document.
You might think "well what's the big deal?" The big deal is that these false characterizations that pigeonhole a candidate have destructive power. (Think "Al Gore is a an exaggerator" --even though it was the media that misquoted him to say that he invented the internet.)
Given that both Hillary and McCain (laughably so ) have both tried to push the idea that Obama is not substantive, you would think that the media could at least present some basic factual information. For example, they could say:
While both Clinton and Obama have presented detailed plans for the economy and healthcare reform, Obama has emphasized broader themes such as hope and unity while Mrs. Clinton has emphasized the importance of working hard to implement change.At least that would make it clear that they both have detailed plans even if the media is too lazy to actually describe them.
Matthew Yglesias picks up on this and has emphasized in several posts this bizarre reluctance of the media to actually discuss the policy details.