"Change" was the new mantra for the Domcratic party presidential candidates in the recent New Hampshire debate over the weekend. X4mr already touched on some of the reasons for this in his post last night, but anyone who didn't watch the debate missed how overwhelming a theme it was - at times it seemed the candidates felt the need to stress "change" the same way Giuliani reflexively spits out "9/11" in every other sentence.
Apparently the lesson Clinton took from Iowa was the message of "change" promoted by the Obama and Edwards campaigns trumped her message of "expertise" there, and she immediately set about putting that lesson to use. Whether it's good use or not remains to be seen.
Being cynical about such things, I have a hard time believing Clinton, who has unquestionably been running the most cautious campaign among the Democrats, who clearly has the closest ties to the party institutions and apparatchiks, truly embraces the concept the same way many of the Iowa voters did.
Don't get me wrong - should Clinton win nomination, and subsequently the Presidency, there will be changes from the way the country has been run the past seven years, and (in my opinion) many of those changes would be for the better. However, they would also be incremental, small change, changes within the existing structure.
If Clinton wins, things may change, but they won't CHANGE. If Democratic voters really hope to break out of the current structure and promote some form of seismic change, changes which will truly alter the political discussion in long-term ways, then they need to look to Obama or Edwards. Electing either is not a sufficient condition to create such change, but it is a necessary one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Change is an interesting concept.
Whoever gets elected will change some things, but DC is a system that is broken & needs true impartial, bipartisan efforts at reform.
example: I filed that complaint about the abuse of the franking privilage, but it is an abuse that is not monopolized by one party...along with most DC abuses.
I'm cynical about true change as well.
Obama has done an excellent job getting his "change" message out; Clinton is about to get DC nasty on Obama; you guys seem to think Edwards is cut from a different cloth, but from the other side of the aisle, he seems like the least sincere of all.
The "change" candidates do well with the younger, less cynical kids...they haven't ever been able to get the vote out, so we'll see how it works out.
I find it interesting you perceive Edwards as the "least sincere". From my perspective, he sounds the most militant of the three candidates, and I think if he were to become President we would likely see far more in the way of confrontation between the White House and Congressional Republicans than if Obama wins, and maybe even if Clinton wins.
I wonder if what I perceive as militancy is perceived on your side of things as insincerity.
Obviously, ability to turnout younger voters is historically something difficult to do. Still, Obama's done it once, and looks likely to do it again today (NH is expecting record turnout, although McCain's attractiveness to younger voters certainly helps there). If he can manage it throughout the primary season, there is no reason to think it would not carry over to the general.
The Clintons are really starting to get on my nerves. There is an AP video out today of Bill Clinton trashing Obama in front of a group of voters in New Hampshire. His voice is gone and he is in bad form, overall.
Is this how you win hearts and minds at the last minute? Hillary tried attacking Obama, then she tried out for a boo-hoo bounce with that little performance in the restaurant, and Obama shoots up another five points in the polls.
Well, at the end of the day we'll know who is going to win in New Hampshire. If it's not Hillary, then mama's going to need a brand new bag. I don't know what's left or where she can go from here. The Clintons might have to face the reality that the nation is looking for something different and they really do represent the status quo.
I didn't see Clinton has "trashing" Obama. Nothing I saw seemed personal. It was more, "Hey, Obama needs to be fact-checked too" ... and he's right. You know damn well anything Obama gets subjected to in the primary will be child's play compared to what will happen in the general.
I also didn't think the choking up was staged, but rather a legitimate moment of tiredness ... but I fully understand being cynical about politicians.
Unfortunately, with MI coming up, and a series of states which don't allow Independents to vote in the primaries, I think Clinton is now looking in far more solid shape, unless Obama and Edwards come to an understanding somehow.
Sirocco, I saw what Bill was doing in that video as a trashing. His tone, his demeanor, and his words. It will get worse and there will be more. That is what the Clintons do.
Hillary was genuinely tired which gave some credibility to her performance, that's all.
It's true that Edwards and Obama together are beating Hillary very badly, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if they came to an understanding.
Race is a major issue, I am convinced of that, and no one is more sad about that than I am.
Liza,
I have seen some speculation about a Bradley effect vis-a-vis Obama yesterday, but he was polling around 37% going in and tallied 37%, so it doesn't seem to have been in play. It just seems like, for whatever reason, there was a late Clinton surge.
Sirocco,
I know what you're saying. As it turns out, the polls showed Obama about right, Clinton low, and Edwards high. Are Edwards supporters drifting away because they do not think he can win? And are they drifting mostly to Clinton? Or did the record high turnout benefit Clinton because of demographics (older, white, women?)
Clinton will get a surge of money from this undoubtedly. Enough to attack Obama from every angle. I hope it backfires.
Post a Comment