Sen. Barack Obama’s victory speech in South Carolina contained a twist on his core theme of “change”:
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.
***
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.
We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again. (Emphases added.)
These not-so-veiled shots at the Clinton campaign are telling, not only about the current state of the Democratic race, but about the general election if Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee (still the most likely outcome).
First, let us tip our caps to regular commenter happyfeet, for the following observation on the current bout of Clinton Disillusionment Syndrome among left-liberals:
CDS is a lot really a backdoor way of shining Obama’s halo of changeyness. To the extent that the argument succeeds, the remaining Clinton supports are not in the changeyness game, they’re in the status quo ante game. When Clinton gets the nomination, the Obama kids are going to understand in a feeling it kind of way the proposition that the Democratic party has rejected changeyness. So the two questions I think are what motivates changeyness acolytes to go pull the lever for Hillary and why is McCain smiling?
happyfeet thus beat Obama and Frank Rich to the punch, with more brevity and insight. The larger point, regardless of the GOP nominee, is that nominating the Clintons (and it will be nigh-impossible for them to deny the Bill is a ghostly figure on that ticket) would make the election much less about Obama’s empty-vessel of feel-good change and much more about a choice between Clinton and NotClinton.ÂÂ
This would likely be the case even if Obama is the vice-presidental nominee. He would probably be more of a boost for the ticket than Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, but it is far from clear that he still brings independents and Republicans into the fold at the bottom of the ticket, and blacks historically vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat ticket anyway.
Obama’s speech serves notice that nominating the Clintons takes much of the wind out of the sail of changeyness the Democrats hope to ride to victory in November. Whether Democratic primary and caucus voters will absorb that argument remains to be seen.
2008, the year of the Great Changeyness.
It’d be truly laughable if there weren’t the outside chance it might get them elected.
Really, with the exception of Silky for VP last time around, has there ever been a less qualified candidate than Barry? I know, that makes me a racist, but who gives a shit. It is almost, scratch that, it is embarassing that doing nothing other than talking about socialist programs, completely buffoonery on foreign policy, and the changeyness of the status quo could be enough to get this political neophyte elected to the highest office in the land. Next up, Shaquille O’Neal, Charles Barkley, Heidi Klum, One of the Brady’s, and Danny Bonaduce, and maybe a ticket of Paris and Nicole while we are at it.
“has there ever been a less qualified candidate than Barry?”
Not many less but plenty of just as unqualified. Some of ’em won, too. Taylor, Fillmore and Hayes aren’t household names – for a reason.
You have a point there, Rick. On the other hand, if Fillmore said something idiotic in Wichita on Tuesday, it might not make the news for several days or more, on the coasts. And I doubt they talked about the changeyness of the status quo very often. In an era where information is available at the touch of a button, it would seem that actually having experience would be a pre-requisite. With his law degree, he might be qualified to be my bosses boss, but no higher. Outside of a flurry of present votes, there just ain’t much there.
JD,
Perhaps it’s better to think of the matter as a poll question?
Which of the following candidates possesses the least qualification for the office of President?
1)BHO
2)Red Witch
3) Silky Pony
Now that’s a tough one, given that the résumés of all three could be printed on a single match book cover with space left to write out a decent quantum mechanics formula.
I would say Hillary, because she served longer in the Senate, and frankly, seems to give the impression of a more serious, though considerably more unlikable, person. Silkly had 1 term in the Senate, and a ridiculous run for VP, on top of his channelling dead babies. Those 2 dwarf Obama, and now it is racist for us to point it out? He did not even stand out in the state Senate, and certainly has not made a name for himself in the US Senate.
I do not want to believe this, but I do. I believe that the Dem nominee, unless it is Edwards, will win. I also think that Hillary would be far less destructive than Obama. I should be rooting for Hillary. Voting for Hillary. Donating cash to her campaign.
I just threw up a little in the back of my mouth.
The matter is thus resolved. Happyfeets for Prez ’08!
The Democratic nominee will not be in good shape I don’t think. Running on changeyness means three things at least. You have to bitch incessantly about the status quo. That won’t move the dial come November. They peaked way too soon for that.
Running on changeyness also means you have to propose actual changes, which means your party needs to be really careful about actually enacting any relevant ones over the next year. Minimum wage is off the table and the mpg tweak blunts the global warming-driven wholesale redesign of the economy a lot more than they realize.
Also, running on changeyness is really a lot blunted if the opposition party puts up a fight. That your changeyness is not changing the political dynamic becomes readily apparent, and your actual proposed changes need then carry the freight. A debate about the actual proposed changes Democrats are slavering for is not one the Republican party need fear in the least.
Lastly, and tangentially, the electorate is older. Codgers hate change. They’re gonna have to scare the shit out of grandma, and having cried wolf on the Medicare drug benefit, they just don’t have the credibility to do that. Especially if Grandpa McCain or bestest-grandson-ever Mitt have anything to say about it.
Oh hey. I shoulda refreshed. Mostly in ’08 I just want to finish ripping all my cds. But I guess as Pres I could like make someone do that for me.
“the electorate is older. Codgers hate change.”
True. (Conservatives hate change more than codgers though.) There will be a change in the geezer paradigm for the ’12 election due to the growth in numbers of Boomergeezers – much wealthier but unlikely to be any smarter. The old geezer paradigm (dogfood eaters) pertains to the ’08 election but the absolute number of Yellow Dog geezers has been dropping steadily since ’92.
The Red Witch’s big problem is that she does not appeal to women below the age of 50 to anywhere near the extent that she appeals to those over 50 and she doesn’t have the Yellow Dog cushion that Bubba had to carry the day for her. For which we should all give thanks. Sort of.
“Especially if Grandpa McCain or bestest-grandson-ever Mitt have anything to say about it.”
Once again happyfeet you make my day!
Boomergeezers.
::gets out notepad::
::jots::
I learned a new word today. And a fine one at that.
;^)
Not necessarily. It is the idea of “change for change’s sake” that bugs most of us, because simply insisting that something is wrong and that change is not only necessary, but good, doesn’t address the underlying reality.
Insisting that Iraq is a “quagmire” in the face of contradictory evidence, and demanding that we “change course” doesn’t show that change is something that should occur in the first place, much less that the proposed change (if any) actually solves the problem.
But the elites keep reporting that we-as-a-nation need “changeyness”, and almost half the populace is willing to roll over and play dead for the one
professional liarpolitician that promises the level of change they are told we need.But the facts remain: we are NOT in any kind of recession, and the situation on the ground in Iraq is dramatically improved from the dog days of last summer. You don’t hear specifics about that in any of the Presidential debates, just the “How quickly will you surrender?” and “Show of hands: how much change do we need?” kind of questions.
I think the technical term for that tactic is “begging the question”. But when it is the “impartial” press – the self-appointed referees of morality and legality – doing it, we’re left with the resultant question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think that the Democratis voters all realise deep-down that “change” just means “people should listen to us more than they do now”, so they will vote for whoever thinks most like them, which in November could easily be Hillary.