An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Change Campaign

Barack Obama has hit an American nerve with the word, “change.”

It started in the speeches the night of the Iowa caucuses. He had used the word before, of course, but not as a candidate acknowledging a caucus victory that gave his words new prominence, new credibility, new promise.

In the days since, the word has taken off. The media is offering up complete reports about the sudden significance of the word “change” to the presidential campaign. No longer is Hillary the campaign’s VIP. Over the weekend, Obama shot ahead of her in the New Hampshire polls. He is achieving, as a presidential candidate, invaluable name identification based on that one word. As soon as they can, his campaign managers should start distributing blue campaign buttons, and on the button that word: “Change.” Anyone seeing it would know instantly which candidate it represented.

It is working so well because the country is so far behind. I remember feeling such an indifference to the 2006 mid-term elections because it didn’t make that much difference whether Republicans lost control of Congress to the Democrats. After six years of George W. Bush leadership, I felt like a spectator in a stadium, watching the Bush Administration vs. the Nation. It was like the nation was behind, 100-0, at the beginning of the fourth quarter, there was no mercy rule, and nobody could leave until the fat lady sings. If Republicans lost control, the final score, when Bush was finally carried off the field in 2008, might be 150-14.

Surely a non-Republican Congress could scratch out a couple of scores in two years, but most of the drives wouldn’t get inside the 40-yard line, against an opponent that knows how to use the rules so well.

But who cares? What good are 14 points in the last quarter of a game that was over at the half? In the Congressional locker room, what will the coach say? “Folks, you did your best.” Well, rah rah rah. The stories in the morning papers, when the gun finally sounds in 2008, will be about which nation is bloodied the worst, Iraq or America.

I am just an American, sitting in the stands, rooting for a country that is behind 100-0 with still at least half a quarter to go. You think I’m ready for change? Barack Obama does. People in the stands are so ready for change that last week they started to cheer. Sen. Obama, brother, you have hit our button. The main kind of experience we want in a candidate is the experience of change.

In the months before Iowa, he kept talking about hope, but shoot, who cares about hope, behind 100-0, in a game that was over at the half? Now he starts talking about change, and hey, our hopes are going up. Change may be as futile as hope, in the long run. I’m not sure there is a candidate available in this country who in a single term can repair the gashes made by an expert eight-year assault on the nation’s balances of power.

But it’s only getting elected that matters at this point, and “change” is exactly the right word. When the other candidates see the clout it brings to Obama, it may get them to stop talking about themselves, and start thinking about us. Get those buttons out there, Obama managers.

Cross-posted from my blog.

  • kritt11
    I'm starting to cringe when I hear the word "change". Change to what? Are voters so dumbed down that casting their vote comes down to one 6 letter word? With the problems we are facing we need the voice of wisdom and restraint, not the guru of change. I'm still disappointed that my man Biden is out, and the press barely noticed it. You really do get the leadership you deserve.
  • DLS
    In this case, K, "change" means someone who hasn't (yet) become a DC fixture. Obama's record hardly points to any kind of real change. What we may see is infighting among Democrats in addition to GOP-Dem conflict if Obama were to bring "outsiders" to DC with him.
  • flyerhawk
    kritti,

    It's morning in America.

    People yearn for hope for a better future. For themselves and their family.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    While change to what is a good question, isn't this more about change from what?

    George W Bush is a very unpopular president, who is only concerned with satisfying the Republican base.
  • superdestroyer
    I find it odd that people believe that a machine politicians from Chicago whose policy proposals are standard Democratic Party boiler plate is going to bring everyone together. I some how feel that when progressives talk about bringing people together, what they mean is the "shut up and agree with me" type of consensus (See most college campuses for good examples).

    When people start fighting over goodies from the government, the idea of consensus and agreement will end. I doubt that any Obama Administration will have the huge economy boom that Clinton experienced in his last three years in office.
  • kritt11
    SD- That's a little unfair to Obama. He's open to including Republicans in his Cabinet, which is more openness than we've had recently.

    George Sorwell, I agree somewhat. But change for its own sake just creates a feeling of instability. We have had a lot of changes over the last 7 years under Bush, and they were not necessarily good ones.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC