Team Obama Finds The Slogan and The Message

WASHINGTON – This year, it will take more than First Lady Michelle Obama’s lofty campaign rhetoric to reelect Pres. Obama, which drew a lot of attention from Republicans yesterday. Polls don’t mean much now, but everyone in the polling business has got one, with the snap shot of today revealing Romney and Obama are near even with registered voters in a CBS/New York Times poll, while Obama has a gigantic lead among women, which is shown in every poll, including the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.

In “The Party’s Over,” I made the observation, among many others, that the Obama campaign still hadn’t found a slogan. They’ve at least found one to rev up the faithful, which is where it all begins, especially in an election year that’s starting off as a snore.

But what’s missing? Killing the bad guy.

Nothing about giving the order on Osama.

Somehow I can’t imagine Republicans leaving that detail out.

image via Buzzfeed


Taylor Marsh is the author of The Hillary Effect, which is available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble, where it was 1 of only 4 books in their NOOK Featured Authors Selection launch. Marsh is a veteran political analyst and commentator. She has written for The Hill, U.S. News & World Report, among others, and has been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her new media blog.

         

11 Comments

  1. I find it interesting, in that it does answer a challenge “what change!?” It’s interesting that campaigns need to be business-card simple to strike some sort of image.

    But the image that keeps coming back to me, that I would think is appropriate for the GOP, from the initial days of Obama’s 2008 campaign is simply: “NOPE”

  2. JeffP…I agree that campaigns need to be business-card simple to strike some sort of image since most voters have the attention span of a gnat and anything bigger overwhelms their brain cells.

  3. RP you are correct unfortunately.

    This I learned most poignantly during the first rallies of the Tea Party Patriots, right after GWB’s reign of massive spending increases, war-mongering, warrant-less wire-tapping, secret prisons with torture being defended, and other atrocities cheer-led on with deafening “USA-USA!” chants about defending “freedoms.”

    “Take our country back!” seems appropriate for their business card logo, right back to the dark ages.

  4. I have to disagree JeffP. I thought the first Tea Party rallies were admirable, focused on control of government spending and much of time blamed both parties for US fiscal problems. It was later that they morphed into social conservative GOP lapdogs.

  5. “I would think is appropriate for the GOP, from the initial days of Obama’s 2008 campaign is simply: “NOPE”” – JeffP

    Perfect.

  6. “Anybody But Romney”

    Nice essay Taylor, I still think that the present day Reps do not deserve a pass on women’s issues, but you are correct on Obama being an empty suit (pardon my assuming that is what you imply).

    I have no idea if Romney will make a “good” president, but certainly no one should have been sure Obama would be a good president except for unfounded hopey changey feelings.

  7. Here’s the difference dd: Obama was consistent in his positions all along, whereas Romney has been all over the place. How will anyone even know what they are going to get?? Btw, “empty suit”? C’mon, you don’t have to like the guy but he deserves more credit than that.

  8. Obama consistent? The guy who was going to close Guantanamo? The senator who voted against raising the debt ceiling? The candidate who felt marriage should be only between a man and a woman? The brave anti-war senator that escalated the Afghanistan war as president? The president that sends the military to bomb countries that pose us no threat? The president that assassinates US citizens without a trial? There are many other examples.

    Obama is no more genuine than Romney. Voters are left to guess what both candidates will actually do as president.

  9. DaGoat, you dislike for Obama is apparently clouding your memory. The reason Obama didn’t close Gitmo is because Congress blocked it. He hasn’t changed his position on marriage equality, though I wish he would. He pledged during his campaign to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, and he did. Sent the military to bomb countries that pose no threat to us? You’re confusing Obama with G. W. Bush. Assassinates citizens without a trial? I think this policy is wrong, but he never pledged not to do it.

    The only significant shift I can think of is that he was against the health care personal mandate during his campaign.

    Many others? I don’t think so. He’s been remarkably consistent.

  10. aartimus, did you consider Libya a direct threat to the US?

    Anyway sorry to take the thread off track. Obama’s decision to highlight his successes is probably a good idea although when you look at them individually not all will necessarily appeal to undecided voters. Romney is able to counter with what’s not on the list, namely jobs.

  11. Geez, Romney has been running for president for six years, was a governor, a businessman, head organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics.
    He has a long history and HAS changed his positions MANY times, yes.

    Candidate Obama on the other hand, had virtually no history, so of course he had less time to change his mind, alter a position or stick his foot in his mouth.

    Indeed, his lack of historical baggage combined with his great oratorical skill, propelled him past HC (loaded with baggage), and here we are.

    As president, he has changed and caved on a few things and that is par for the course (Bush was chastised for not being able to be “flexible”) for a president.

Submit a Comment