"Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama’s Democratic rival, has studied this argot. Her style of declamation tends toward that of the school valedictorian, but she grounds her talks in detail after detail after detail — her plan for stanching foreclosures, for tuberculosis, for tax breaks and so on and on, every program coming with a precise dollar sign attached." [nytimes]

Apparently, Pennsylvanians are angry "prosaic" jobless yokels who are meticulous policy wonks who, since they don't have employment, just spend all day looking at what bills have made it out of committee. This paragraph misses the point, though. A basic understanding of the United States government suggests that such detailed proposals are nonsense. Clinton's nuance, in fact, amounts to making promises, the keeping of which require an accurate forecast of:
-the value of the dollar for FY2010
-whether or not budgetary priorities will change
-whether or not congress, which will presumably be composed differently, will cotton to any of this

The president may propose whatever sort of budget he (and perhaps in some future election, she) wishes, but this does not at all guarantee that the budget that actually comes out of congress will much resemble the proposed one. The domination of parochial interests is especially determinant of the appropriation process.
In this way I think Barry's heretofore more general, idealist rhetoric actually makes him more, not less, ingenuous. I am not suggesting they forgo detail. A presidential candidate ought to talk about goals and priorities; where more money is needed, how to prop up the big investment banks--but any candidate pledging X dollars for tuberculosis and Z dollars for defense and 0 dollars for education is pandering, and failing to yield to reality. Here's what happens when Barry speaks the truth:

“I don’t want to make a promise that I can bring back every job that was in Johnstown,” he said. “That’s not true.”

Some in the audience applauded; others sat stolidly.

More later.