A March 27 Associated Press article by reporter Nedra Pickler -- headlined “Is Obama All Style and Little Substance?” -- falsely claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has “delivered no policy speeches” while campaigning “and provided few details about how he would lead the country.” In fact, on March 2, Obama delivered what the Chicago Tribune described as a “major policy speech on U.S.-Israel policy,” and news reports indicate that in campaign speeches across the country, Obama has offered policy proposals on Iraq, education, the environment, energy, and health care.

Moreover, the article itself undermined Pickler's claim. The third to last paragraph of the article noted that during the campaign: “Obama has offered a plan to get troops out of Iraq, beginning with a drawdown in May that would extended through a March 2008 goal of redeploying all combat troops. The plan is unlikely to become reality with Bush in office, but is what Obama says he would do if he were in the Oval Office today.” Indeed, Obama even mentioned his Iraq plan during his February 10 address announcing his candidacy.

Contrary to Pickler's assertion that Obama has “delivered no policy speeches,” on March 2 he delivered a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which Obama offered specific policy proposals for dealing with Iraq and the Middle East. In the speech, Obama asserted that the Iraq “war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.” Continuing, Obama detailed his proposal for ending the war in Iraq:

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East. And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran -- something this Administration has finally embraced.

During the speech, Obama also discussed his plan for dealing with Iran, which he called “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace.” Obama also warned of the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Obama further explained his plan:

To prevent this worst-case scenario [Iran possessing nuclear weapons], we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.

Obama also stated: "[W]e have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end."

Moreover, Obama's campaign speeches have reportedly focused on education, environmental, energy, and health policies. For instance, a March 26 South Florida Sun-Sentinel article on Obama's recent Palm Beach County fundraising appearance reported: “Focusing on domestic priorities, Obama advocated for a universal health care system by 2012, pay raises for teachers and expanded early childhood education programs, and a new energy policy to increase fuel-efficiency standards and confront global warming.” According to the Sun-Sentinel, Obama “did not detail how he would pay for these priorities,” but did “say that money now going to the Iraq war could be used on domestic programs.”

Similarly, a March 20 article in The Journal Record (Oklahoma City) reported that in a March 19 campaign appearance, Obama “discussed the war in Iraq, health care and education.” According to The Journal Record, Obama advocated increasing educators' salaries and “said the country should use fossil fuels more efficiently as well as harness solar and wind power.” A March 20 article in The Oklahoman also reported that during his speech, Obama “said if elected, he would have an energy policy to make the country less dependent on foreign oil with an increased use of biofuels and wind and solar power.”

Covering Obama's March 18 appearance in Denver, a March 19 Colorado Daily article reported in detail on Obama's domestic policy proposals:

Obama went on to discuss oil dependency and showed great concern for the environment by calling for higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, the development of biodiesel and alternative fuels, and putting a price on greenhouse gases to cap the amount of CO2 manufacturers are allowed to put into the atmosphere.

Other proposals in his domestic agenda included a need for “not just a minimum wage, but a living wage,” installing broadband cable in rural and urban areas to increase access to the digital economy, and making children's education competitive with those in Beijing and Bangalore, a comment on what Obama sees as America's declining global standing.

Yet, his most concrete statement came when he committed himself to providing basic health care for every American by the end of his first term. In a series of points outlining ways that the U.S. government already knows it can make improvements, Obama listed funding early prevention, providing caseworkers for the chronically ill, and embracing information technology as a way to reduce medical bureaucracy and cut costs.

A February 27 Akron Beacon Journal article noted that during a recent appearance in Cleveland, “Obama pledged to create a health-care system for the country's uninsured by the end of his first term in office.” The article also reported that Obama “called for an end to tax breaks for companies that export jobs overseas and for an energy policy that would use solar and wind power not only to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, but to create jobs as well.”

While Pickler appears to be asserting that Obama has “delivered no policy speeches” since Obama “began his campaign,” previous policy speeches Obama made would give further insight into the themes of his campaign speeches and further challenge Pickler's suggestion that Obama might be “all style and little substance.” For example, Obama gave a speech on September 20, 2006, at Georgetown University, in which he laid out proposals to encourage energy independence. In his speech, Obama proposed raising corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards in automobiles; negotiating with “the Big Three automakers” to encourage “invest[ment] in more fuel-efficient cars”; and creating “a national biofuel infrastructure”:

We start by producing cars that use less oil. The auto industry has not been asked to raise fuel economy standards in seventeen years, and lately we've just stopped asking them to.

Today, we have no choice. Starting in 2008, if we raised CAF'E standards a modest 3% a year over the next twelve years, by 2020 passenger vehicles would average 40.5 mpg and light trucks would average 32.6 mpg. This is by no means a dramatic increase -- five years ago, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that raising CAF'E to 33 mpg for passenger cars could easily be done without compromising passenger safety.

Not only would this reduce America's oil consumption, but it would increase profits for the auto industry. Yesterday a University of Michigan report came out that said if the Big Three automakers took proactive steps to increase the fuel-efficiency of their vehicles, they would stand to gain up to $2 billion more in profits per year. But if they continue on their current path, they could stand to lose up to $3.6 billion in profits.

[...]

We should strike a grand bargain with the Big Three automakers where the government picks up part of the tab for their retiree health care costs -- a tab that ran almost $6.7 billion just last year -- in exchange for the car companies using that savings to invest in more fuel-efficient cars.

Beyond raising CAFE, however, it's time we replace oil altogether as America's fuel of choice. This doesn't just mean singing the praises of ethanol and hoping that it finds its way into our fuel supply on its own. It means taking major steps now to put a national biofuel infrastructure in place.

Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don't have these tanks.

It's time for them to install those tanks in every single car they make, and it's time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car. We should also make sure that from now on, every single automobile the government purchases is a flex-fuel vehicle.

It's also a time to start making E85 fueling stations more available to the public. Currently, only 681 out of 170,000 fueling stations in America offer E85 pumps. This is not acceptable. Every American should have the choice to fill up their car with E85 at any fueling station. And oil companies should stop standing in the way and join us in making this happen. If the big oil companies would devote just 1% of their first quarter profits this year to install E85 pumps, more than 7,000 service stations would be able to serve E85 to hungry motorists.

Finally, we should reduce the risk of investing in renewable fuels by providing loan guarantees and venture capital to those entrepreneurs with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels. And we should create a market for renewable fuels by ramping up the renewable fuel standard and creating an alternative diesel standard in this country that together would blend 65 billion gallons of renewable fuels into the petroleum supply each year.

Reporter and media writer Greg Sargent also noted the AP article on his weblog The Horse's Mouth.