Change

[gomer_tree]

Putting your entire campaign on this one word is really, really annoying. I can see trumpeting it as part of a broader strategy, but seriously, every thing I have seen with Obama is "<blah blah> change".

Now he's actually coining his rallies by naming them something about change.

It's really annoying. He doesn't really say how we'll change, other than real general platitudes like "We'll all work together instead of being divided." Well, that's great I guess, but how?

I don't know, maybe it's just me. But at some point he needs to actually start saying a few things. Maybe that's what happened in New Hampshire. Enough people started realizing that, while perhaps motivating and enthusiastic, he wasn't really saying anything other than "let's change!"


I guess I'm not sure what that means. Going from capitalism to Communism would be a change, for example, but I'm guessing most people would say they don't have that in mind. And no matter who gets elected, it will be a different President than we have now, so you could argue that change is guaranteed (notwithstanding Tupac's belief that George will pronounce himself King or something).

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't agree with Obama's politics at all, but the first few times I saw the guy talk I thought "he is pretty good, and comes across as Presidential." Now, he's starting to just annoy the crap out of me. Now, I'm not his target, obviously. I'm just wondering if any people who were leaning towards him, but are now starting to feel the same way.

[krank]

Putting your entire campaign on this one word is really, really annoying. I can see trumpeting it as part of a broader strategy, but seriously, every thing I have seen with Obama is "<blah blah> change".

Now he's actually coining his rallies by naming them something about change.

It's really annoying. He doesn't really say how we'll change, other than real general platitudes like "We'll all work together instead of being divided." Well, that's great I guess, but how?

I don't know, maybe it's just me. But at some point he needs to actually start saying a few things. Maybe that's what happened in New Hampshire. Enough people started realizing that, while perhaps motivating and enthusiastic, he wasn't really saying anything other than "let's change!"


I guess I'm not sure what that means. Going from capitalism to Communism would be a change, for example, but I'm guessing most people would say they don't have that in mind. And no matter who gets elected, it will be a different President than we have now, so you could argue that change is guaranteed (notwithstanding Tupac's belief that George will pronounce himself King or something).

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't agree with Obama's politics at all, but the first few times I saw the guy talk I thought "he is pretty good, and comes across as Presidential." Now, he's starting to just annoy the crap out of me. Now, I'm not his target, obviously. I'm just wondering if any people who were leaning towards him, but are now starting to feel the same way.

Well he could instead flat out lie about what he intends to do like claim he won't nation build but then go ahead an try and do that. or he could use other meaningless slogans like "compassionate conservative" etc. It's getting under your skin because his message seems to be garnering support right?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Well, all of the candidates are about change in one way or another, since none of them are incumbants.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

It's getting under your skin because his message seems to be garnering support right?
Meh. They all say pretty much the same thing. We're only voting on whom we like saying it.

[notreallyme]

I guess I'm not sure what that means. Going from capitalism to Communism would be a change, for example, but I'm guessing most people would say they don't have that in mind.


Interesting use of words :)

While they might not say it that way .......

[Levin]

Well he could instead flat out lie about what he intends to do like claim he won't nation build but then go ahead an try and do that. or he could use other meaningless slogans like "compassionate conservative" etc. It's getting under your skin because his message seems to be garnering support right?
It's getting under my skin because he has been high on my list, and it is just starting to seem empty. It feels, actually, a little bit like with Bush where people (i.e. Levin) did get sort of excited about compassionate conservatism. (Once McCain was out of the picture.)

And then when he got into office, there were 8 months where it seemed like he just didn't know what to do when he got there. And you looked back and wondered what convinced in the campaign that he knew what he was doing. And of course, life hit him and us, with a challenge that I don't believe we would have elected this guy to do.

The last few times I've heard him, he just sounded like he felt he was in over his head.

[gomer_tree]

Well he could instead flat out lie about what he intends to do like claim he won't nation build but then go ahead an try and do that. or he could use other meaningless slogans like "compassionate conservative" etc. It's getting under your skin because his message seems to be garnering support right?

Actually, no. Obama didn't annoy me the first couple times I heard him speak. I knew his politics and I knew I wouldn't vote for him, but I can still listen to a guy and think "OK, he annoys me" or "OK, he's a good speaker and I don't mind listening to him, even though I don't agree with him."

And while it's true that all the candidates can be annoying with their "themes," I think I've heard all the other candidates at some point change it up a bit and talk about policy. Seriously, I've now listened to Obama a number of times and it's ALWAYS the same thing, and it ends up being a bunch of general platitudes that, quite honestly, tells me little to nothing about what he stands for. All the other candidates at least leave me with a pretty good understanding of what they stand for.

But the Obama matra seems to be "Change! Trust me on this..."

[Uncle Howie]

I think he should start saying it in French, to spice things up. It's time for change! (pronounced shahnge)

[Ohel Moed]

I think he should start saying it in French, to spice things up. It's time for change! (pronounced shahnge)

Or, pronounce it like Peter Brady, from the Brady Bunch.

[The President]

Actually, no. Obama didn't annoy me the first couple times I heard him speak. I knew his politics and I knew I wouldn't vote for him, but I can still listen to a guy and think "OK, he annoys me" or "OK, he's a good speaker and I don't mind listening to him, even though I don't agree with him."

And while it's true that all the candidates can be annoying with their "themes," I think I've heard all the other candidates at some point change it up a bit and talk about policy. Seriously, I've now listened to Obama a number of times and it's ALWAYS the same thing, and it ends up being a bunch of general platitudes that, quite honestly, tells me little to nothing about what he stands for. All the other candidates at least leave me with a pretty good understanding of what they stand for.

But the Obama matra seems to be "Change! Trust me on this..."
He is selling a leadership style. For the most part, the positions of Hillary, Edwards, and Obama are too similar to campaign on. Hillary is the strong experienced leader, Edwards was the guy for the poor and middle class, and Obama represents a movement away from dirty DC politics. At a time when America is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the government, that is a good selling point.

You are on the side of "no change", I am not surprised you find him selling this point annoying.

[Uncle Howie]

It's pronounced, change.

[Runge Kutta]

Putting your entire campaign on this one word is really, really annoying. I can see trumpeting it as part of a broader strategy, but seriously, every thing I have seen with Obama is "<blah blah> change".

Now he's actually coining his rallies by naming them something about change.

It's really annoying. He doesn't really say how we'll change, other than real general platitudes like "We'll all work together instead of being divided." Well, that's great I guess, but how?

I don't know, maybe it's just me. But at some point he needs to actually start saying a few things. Maybe that's what happened in New Hampshire. Enough people started realizing that, while perhaps motivating and enthusiastic, he wasn't really saying anything other than "let's change!"


I guess I'm not sure what that means. Going from capitalism to Communism would be a change, for example, but I'm guessing most people would say they don't have that in mind. And no matter who gets elected, it will be a different President than we have now, so you could argue that change is guaranteed (notwithstanding Tupac's belief that George will pronounce himself King or something).

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't agree with Obama's politics at all, but the first few times I saw the guy talk I thought "he is pretty good, and comes across as Presidential." Now, he's starting to just annoy the crap out of me. Now, I'm not his target, obviously. I'm just wondering if any people who were leaning towards him, but are now starting to feel the same way.

I'm not sure why you don't see the significance in electing a non-caucasian president, but to call it a change would be an understatement. It would also have huge ramifications on unification since millions of disenfranchised minorities would feel like someone in Washington is representing them. In short: change, unity.

[Scott_Lski]

He is selling a leadership style. For the most part, the positions of Hillary, Edwards, and Obama are too similar to campaign on. Hillary is the strong experienced leader, Edwards was the guy for the poor and middle class, and Obama represents a movement away from dirty DC politics. At a time when America is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the government, that is a good selling point.

You are on the side of "no change", I am not surprised you find him selling this point annoying.

I reject totally that Hillary is the "strong experienced leader". She has done little more than campaign for the presidency since being elected to the Senate from New York. The experience she keeps referring to is her time spent in the White House, while she was the wife of the president, yet she won't release any of the papers that document her so called experience.

Edwards is for the little guy? Give me a break. Mr. 20,000 square foot mansion financed by screwing over people with crappy lawsuits does not care one iota about the "little guy". He preaches about the Two Americas. I'm pretty sure you can guess which one he is from. But really, this is useless to debate since Edwards is done anyways.

Obama sounds great when speaking. He is a magnificent orator. I got chills listening to his concession speach in New Hampshire. But i have to echo what was said earlier...it sounded great, but he didn't really say anything! Just more of "blah blah blah Change! I'm for change! Blah blah blah WooHoo!!!"

Lets face it, all the dems running suck. Vote Republican.

[Standtall]

I'm not sure why you don't see the significance in electing a non-caucasian president, but to call it a change would be an understatement. It would also have huge ramifications on unification since millions of disenfranchised minorities would feel like someone in Washington is representing them. In short: change, unity.

Doesn't this imply that a non-minority President can't represent a minority citizen?

[Uncle Howie]

:lpoffp:

[Uncle Howie]

:fpotnp:

[Runge Kutta]

Doesn't this imply that a non-minority President can't represent a minority citizen?

It implies the belief that a non-minority prez can't/won't represent a minority citizen. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant.

[IAm@Work.com]

It implies the belief that a non-minority prez can't/won't represent a minority citizen. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant.And yet, you seem to think that a minority president will represent all, including the non-minorities, and thus "have huge ramifications on unification".

Do you find that inconsistent?

I get the impression you are longing for what you want, rather than thinking about what you will get.

[The President]

I reject totally that Hillary is the "strong experienced leader". She has done little more than campaign for the presidency since being elected to the Senate from New York. The experience she keeps referring to is her time spent in the White House, while she was the wife of the president, yet she won't release any of the papers that document her so called experience.

Edwards is for the little guy? Give me a break. Mr. 20,000 square foot mansion financed by screwing over people with crappy lawsuits does not care one iota about the "little guy". He preaches about the Two Americas. I'm pretty sure you can guess which one he is from. But really, this is useless to debate since Edwards is done anyways.

Obama sounds great when speaking. He is a magnificent orator. I got chills listening to his concession speach in New Hampshire. But i have to echo what was said earlier...it sounded great, but he didn't really say anything! Just more of "blah blah blah Change! I'm for change! Blah blah blah WooHoo!!!"

Lets face it, all the dems running suck. Vote Republican.
I think you (as well as many others) are confusing what victory/concession speeches and in general, speeches immediately surrouding the excitement of the election days with speeches in the months leading up to the election and maybe more importantly, the debates where the issues tend to be discussed in more detail.

These speeches are meant to energize crowds and motivate people to vote for a candidate. They aren't the place for them to describe how they are going to bring troops home, or help the economy. I don't think there is a problem with any of them focusing on the the general idea that their campaign offers that is different than the other candidates.

[Harry]

I reject totally that Hillary is the "strong experienced leader". She has done little more than campaign for the presidency since being elected to the Senate from New York. The experience she keeps referring to is her time spent in the White House, while she was the wife of the president, yet she won't release any of the papers that document her so called experience.


By almost any measure, Hillary has been a very good Senator for her state NY. And her constituents know that. It's you righties that have been campaigning for her for years. The fear you guys show is funny.

At the same time, Senator Clinton's job approval rating has increased to 69 percent from 58 percent in October 2002, according to the Times poll. That is higher even than the 63 percent approval rating of Charles E. Schumer, the senior senator from New York who was re-elected last year to a second term with a record 71 percent of the vote and who is known for his attention to upstate concerns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/nyregion/22hillary.html

[gomer_tree]

You are on the side of "no change", I am not surprised you find him selling this point annoying.


I don't know what this means.

[gomer_tree]

I'm not sure why you don't see the significance in electing a non-caucasian president, but to call it a change would be an understatement.

Interesting. While you may be right, I was actually not even considering race at all and just looking at him as a Presidential candidate. Huh.

[punmanbowler]

The fact that Hillary is so popular with the folks in NY does nothing to help her in my book (here in Middle America). Let's face it, NY culture is different from Midwest Culture.

I go back and forth on Obama. Sometimes I like him, sometimes I don't. I think my likes comes from the fact that I don't like Clinton or Edwards. Then he's endorsed by Kerry, which I don't like. He also has a very liberal record.

I mean, I'm still going to vote Republican, but I still like to weigh my options in case my pick doesn't make it.

[gomer_tree]

It implies the belief that a non-minority prez can't/won't represent a minority citizen. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant.


So, which side looks at a person and sees a color, and makes decisions on that basis again? I can't remember.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

The substantive difference between Clinton and Obama is microscopic -- both have ADA ratings in the high 90s. And yet, while I'm indifferent to the prospect of an Obama presidency (if it has to be a Dem), I'm really repulsed at the idea of Clinton being president. It would be funny if Obama pursued this strategy openly. Maybe his speech could go like this:

Look, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between me and Hillary on any of the issues that matter to you. But let's face it -- y'all don't like her much. The voice, the dysfunctional family, the bad pantsuits, the brass knuckle politics, you get the picture. Do you want four or maybe eight years of that? If not, vote for me. I look good, sound good, behave well, and believe in all the same things.

[Lucy]

Well, I am currently leaning towards Obama, and I find his campaign a little frustrating, too. I like the message of unity and hope. (I hate the Edwards' class-warfare pitch nearly as much as I hated Reagan's class-warfare pitch.) But I'd like a little more meat with my cotton candy. So I find myself sort of agreeing with Gomer on this one, even though I expect we will vote for different candidates.

[The President]

I don't know what this means.
You seem fine with what Bush has done, hence change is something that does not appeal to you.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

I hate the Edwards' class-warfare pitch...
Use of the plural noted.

[UNCORRELATED LAY]

The fact that Hillary is so popular with the folks in NY does nothing to help her in my book (here in Middle America). Let's face it, NY culture is different from Midwest Culture.

I go back and forth on Obama. Sometimes I like him, sometimes I don't. I think my likes comes from the fact that I don't like Clinton or Edwards. Then he's endorsed by Kerry, which I don't like. He also has a very liberal record.

I mean, I'm still going to vote Republican, but I still like to weigh my options in case my pick doesn't make it.
I was there during the first Clinton election to Senate. The only reason why she won is because the Republicans screwed up the election. They had no candidate until a month before and by then it was too late.

[Guerilla poster]

I was there during the first Clinton election to Senate. The only reason why she won is because the Republicans screwed up the election. They had no candidate until a month before and by then it was too late.


not sure that is the only reason but it did help her subtantially, Rudy getting sick etc.

[The President]

I was there during the first Clinton election to Senate. The only reason why she won is because the Republicans screwed up the election. They had no candidate until a month before and by then it was too late.
My very general knowledge of the state of New York tells me that this is likely untrue.

[The President]

Also, the fact she was re-elected by a very wide margin in 06 also indicates that there might be other reasons why she was elected in 2000.

[Harry]

The fact that Hillary is so popular with the folks in NY does nothing to help her in my book (here in Middle America). Let's face it, NY culture is different from Midwest Culture.

Yeah, no sh*t. And they're both different from the South and the West. Huckabee's popularity in Iowa and the south does nothing to help him in my book.

[gomer_tree]

You seem fine with what Bush has done, hence change is something that does not appeal to you.


Even if the first part of that were true (I like many things, have definite issues with other things) it really has nothing to do with my argument. The fact is, we will be changing the President. That is change. It will be forced upon us. None of the candidates would change everything, and all of the candidates will change some things. So an empty mantra of "Obama means change" is just kind of annoying. In reality, we will have change no matter what.

I want more specifics to stay interested. Yes, I know that one of his big things is a change in tone and divisiveness. That's great. But is that all he means? Or is he going to be changing policy? Probably the only thing I've heard him specifically allude to is bringing soldiers home. But even that seems vague. Everyone wants that. Will circumstances on the ground dictate it at all, or is it just something he'll do no matter what? Will he listen to the commanders on the ground, or just make a unilateral decision? What time frame is he talking about? Will he paint it as a defeat or a victory?

[gomer_tree]

Also, the fact she was re-elected by a very wide margin in 06 also indicates that there might be other reasons why she was elected in 2000.


I believe that part of her strength was the fact that New Yorkers expected her to run for President. In some states, that may hurt, but I think they had a certain pride in putting a woman in office who may become the first woman President. I could be wrong.

It will be interesting to see, if she fails to win the Presidency, if that affects her popularity with New Yorkers. I don't know the answer.

[krank]

Even if the first part of that were true (I like many things, have definite issues with other things) it really has nothing to do with my argument. The fact is, we will be changing the President. That is change. It will be forced upon us. None of the candidates would change everything, and all of the candidates will change some things. So an empty mantra of "Obama means change" is just kind of annoying. In reality, we will have change no matter what.

I want more specifics to stay interested. Yes, I know that one of his big things is a change in tone and divisiveness. That's great. But is that all he means? Or is he going to be changing policy? Probably the only thing I've heard him specifically allude to is bringing soldiers home. But even that seems vague. Everyone wants that. Will circumstances on the ground dictate it at all, or is it just something he'll do no matter what? Will he listen to the commanders on the ground, or just make a unilateral decision? What time frame is he talking about? Will he paint it as a defeat or a victory?


My take is as follows. I belieev that Hillary wouldbe an effective but probably not a great president. I belieev under her we would see some changes made to healthcare, some changes made to SS etc. All of these chanegs would involve lots of compromise and really only serve as bandaids. You know politics as usual.

I belieev that Obama COULD bring about more substantial changes because of his ability to bring people into his vision of the future. Or he could be a total failure. I don't see Hillary being a total failure. Real change is more likely IMO under Obama than Hillary.

[Harry]

I believe that part of her strength was the fact that New Yorkers expected her to run for President. In some states, that may hurt, but I think they had a certain pride in putting a woman in office who may become the first woman President. I could be wrong.



I think you're wrong. I'm pretty sure that was seen as a negative in NY.

[gomer_tree]

I think you're wrong. I'm pretty sure that was seen as a negative in NY.


I'm not saying some people didn't see it as a negative, but do you really think it was a negative overall? Obviously, Republicans would use it as an argument against her, but did any supporters or independents really come out and suggest that this was an issue?

[Runge Kutta]

And yet, you seem to think that a minority president will represent all, including the non-minorities, and thus "have huge ramifications on unification".

Do you find that inconsistent?

I get the impression you are longing for what you want, rather than thinking about what you will get.

No. His race is not an issue at all to me personally. However, there are millions of minority citizens that are vastly underrepresented in Washington. This has lead to a great deal of resentment towards the system by minority groups.

[notreallyme]

No. His race is not an issue at all to me personally. However, there are millions of minority citizens that are vastly underrepresented in Washington. This has lead to a great deal of resentment towards the system by minority groups.


Could you say more about this? Your second sentence seems to completely contradict your first.

To me it reads as though a person of a certain race (religion, sex, etc. ?) can only be 'represented' by a person with that same trait. By definition then isn't race an issue to you?

How exactly is a group 'represented'? By having policies that are specific to them? If so that to me would be the definition of racism.

[Runge Kutta]

Interesting. While you may be right, I was actually not even considering race at all and just looking at him as a Presidential candidate. Huh.

And therefore overlooking the obvious. Regardless of his policies, he represents change in a very real way; a promise that cannot be a lie.

[Runge Kutta]

Could you say more about this? Your second sentence seems to completely contradict your first.

To me it reads as though a person of a certain race (religion, sex, etc. ?) can only be 'represented' by a person with that same trait. By definition then isn't race an issue to you?

How exactly is a group 'represented'? By having policies that are specific to them? If so that to me would be the definition of racism.

Well, I am a middle-class caucasian male in Midwest USA and I don't need a white prez to represent me.

Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for the African-American contingent but it seems pretty clear to me that if I were in their shoes an election of a non-Caucasian president would restore some faith in a system that has largely defeated many African-Americans (see the racial demographic of inmates).

[Dr T Non-Fan]

...(see the racial demographic of inmates).
Is it possible that there is some other reason for the racial demographic of inmates besides the implied, unwritten race-based doctrine employed by police, prosecuters, and judges?

[Garden_Variety]

I want more specifics to stay interested. Yes, I know that one of his big things is a change in tone and divisiveness. That's great. But is that all he means? Or is he going to be changing policy?

If you are interested in more, his web-site contains a number of policy visions for you to review. See the "Issues" menu... For me, BO's message of changing the dominant paradigm is THE most important issue. Too much energy and news time has been spent on the politics of division. If our "lawmakers" could spend time actually making thoughtful laws, rather than forcing position votes based on asinine non-legal bills, then I would be more concerned with the other issues besides change.

[Runge Kutta]

Is it possible that there is some other reason for the racial demographic of inmates besides the implied, unwritten race-based doctrine employed by police, prosecuters, and judges?

Absolutely, I would agree that there indeed is.

However,for whatever the reason, unless you believe that African-Americans are born with a higher propensity to commit crimes, you must concede that the system has failed this group of people.

[notreallyme]

Absolutely, I would agree that there indeed is.

However,for whatever the reason, unless you believe that poor people with weak family structures are born with a higher propensity to commit crimes, you must concede that the system has failed this group of people.

IFYP

[Ronald Reagan]

RE: Initial post

Campaigns have both sound bites/bumper stickers as well as policy proposals.

All of the D candidates (at least the big 3) have laid out numerous policy papers and approaches. Even if Faux News only says 'Change' all day, that does not mean the candidates haven't done the substance.

I haven't seem much policy work from the R candidates, though. Few have addressed HC. Only a few have been specific on taxes (Huck pulled a plan off the internet and called it his own, for instance. Come on.)

I'm not sure why so many righties get so worked up about these things and can't be bothered to go read what their plans are. Sure, you won't like many of them (from D's), but instead of sounding like you just watch TV you can actually argue the substance.

[Ronald Reagan]

Is it possible that there is some other reason for the racial demographic of inmates besides the implied, unwritten race-based doctrine employed by police, prosecuters, and judges?

There's lots of things that play into everything.

If you do look at sentences for similar crimes though, you'll see poor people (and/or blacks) get worse sentences (jail) for minor drug offenses, while the kid on his way to college gets a fine. I don't think it's alway intentional, but people view the two groups differently.

Would you show up in court in wrinkled, tattered clothes? Why not?

[Ohel Moed]

This is awesome:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/118674/

It's a video of a bunch of candidates talking about change, carefully set to David Bowie's Changes.

[Kilroy]

This is awesome:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/118674/

It's a video of a bunch of candidates talking about change, carefully set to David Bowie's Changes.

Dude! Sweet! :h5:

This compilation is actually more meaningful than the contexts that they were lifted from, lol. :judge:

.. and, oh yeah. CHANGE!!!