Apparently the new and improved slogan for Barack Obama’s campaign is “The Change We Need.”
I like that a lot better than “Change We Can Believe In.” People believe in religion. I am not looking to “believe in” a candidate, I am looking for a candidate who can deliver what Americans need.
But I suppose I would say that, since John Edwards frequently used “the change we need” on the stump and in debates.
Admittedly, Edwards put a bit of a different spin on the slogan:
As President, I will make sure the voices of all Americans are heard in Washington. If we fight together, we can get the change we need and America will rise.
Where some of the other Democratic candidates use the language of compromise or are in fact taking money from and in support of the corporate interests who are blocking real change, I think the policies I’ve released and the way I’ve spoken out show that I’m more willing to fight to achieve the change we need.
Obama doesn’t position himself as a fighter, which is probably just as well. It wouldn’t suit his temperament.
Another difference is that Edwards didn’t necessarily portray himself as the agent of “the change we need.” He often used the expression in reference to the forces preventing that change, as in this speech on restoring our democracy:
To actually create change, we should start by telling the truth.
Here’s the truth: the system in Washington is broken. Money is corrupting our democracy. Lobbyists and the special interests they represent are pouring millions of dollars into the system, and stopping the change we need dead in its tracks.
I’ll be the first to admit that “the system is broken” was not as appealing a message for many Americans as the more upbeat “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.” But despite my deep disappointment regarding the recent revelations about Edwards, I still feel that his campaign message was more honest and to the point.
That’s water under the bridge. I’ve got no problem with Obama using “The Change We Need.” Heck, I’m even considering sending in $15 to get an Obama-Biden magnet for my car.
5 Comments
While sad about the recent revelations on Edwards personal life,
I have long been downright ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY about the Congressional caving in on FISA, taxation that has shifted the burden onto an overburdened middle class, irresponsible deregulation that has caused a bubble followed by DEPRESSION in the housing market, inability to impeach Bush and Cheney for impeacheable offenses, caving in to Big Insurance on health care, and lack of will to address Global Warming!
cybercitizen Tue 26 Aug 5:46 PM
my number one fear
is that we won’t be able to get Obama elected.
My number two fear is that if we elect Obama, we’ll soon be reminded that (as Edwards used to say) the system is rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington.
desmoinesdem Tue 26 Aug 6:17 PM
A question about Senator Edwards
Desmoinesdem, you have a deep regard for Senator Edwards, so I’d like to pose a question to you. Did you see a big difference between the ’08 Edwards and the ’04 Edwards?
I supported Senator Edwards in ’04 for about 20 minutes in our caucus before he lost viability. I did so because I found his delivery more polished and personality more engaging than his opponents that year. I found his personal presentation more “Clinton-like” than any of his peers.
This year, he seemed different to me. But I never supported him with as much passion as you obviously had/have, so I’m interested in whether or not you noted a difference?
johnnyschad Wed 27 Aug 8:19 AM
I liked the 08 version better
because he was emphasizing universal health care and excessive corporate power more than he did in 2004.
However, an Edwards supporter analyzed position papers and other documents from both campaigns and found the language he used was very similar.
I think the biggest difference was the media coverage. In 2003 the media hated Howard Dean and didn’t give Edwards much scrutiny. He was the attractive fresh face and sunny optimist. In 2007 Obama was the attractive fresh face and sunny optimist, except with more money and hype. By last year, the media disliked Edwards as much or more than they disliked Hillary.
Ezra Klein had a good post recently that touched on mainstream journalists’ hatred for Edwards:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b…
desmoinesdem Wed 27 Aug 9:36 AM
Good point about the health care
We defiantly have Senator Edwards to thank for taking that raw concept and forming it into something practical that could actually be implemented. The concept of requiring everyone to have it (like car insurance) was the biggest practical breakthrough. I’d heard that Senator Obama was gravitating towards that position, now that he’s the nominee. I hope that’s true.
Media coverage? sigh. I come from a media family. I grew up in a radio station and we take journalistic integrity very seriously. With the emergence of hundreds of competing cable news networks, news can no longer afford (literally) to be noble or neutral. When it was just the big three networks there could be a kind of unspoken standard that no one would violate.
All it took was one network to lower the bar, and the rest had to follow or lose viewers and advertisers.
So, it seems to me, that today’s journalism is to yesterday’s journalism what professional wrestling is to sports.
johnnyschad Wed 27 Aug 9:01 PM