Maybe I missed something, but the “Change” poster behind Barack Obama seems to have, well, changed. (There’s that word again.) The words “We Can Believe In” have been added to the bottom, for the first time acknowledging, pace Orwell, that not all changes are equal (although some changes are more equal than others). Nazi Germany, for an example, was a change. So was Stalinism (although less of change from Leninism). In the I-Ching it is written: “Change/Opportunity.” Were they referring to car salesman… for whom change is indeed a big opportunity. So far Obama is doing a brilliant job of being vague about what “change” he is referring to. “We Can Believe In” is a masterpiece of obfuscation. He has some good writers.
PJM Home
18 Comments
1. dclydew:You would think that after “Mission Accomplished” the handlers would be trying to get away from signs…..
Jan 7, 2008 - 1:23 pm 2. Lem:Like much of Obama the sign is not his; is inauthentic. (I believe that’s how Spike would pu it)
Obama talks one way at black churches and another way at the town halls.
The change sign was ripped off the 22nd amendment.
Thank you Senator Obama, we can now believe in the constitution.
Jan 7, 2008 - 4:02 pm 3. Mgmax:I think it’s because Hillary’s talking “change” now and so they are differentiating Obama’s vague change from hers.
Great to see the Democrats running on… Newt Gingrich’s platform.
Jan 7, 2008 - 8:15 pm 4. zefal:This Obama that you spit on
Jan 7, 2008 - 11:02 pm 5. David Thomson:as he tries to change our world
is immune to your consultations.
He is quite aware of what he’s going to do.
Barak Obama is a very shallow man. He is merely taking full advantage of many voters desire to prove that they are not racists. The U.S. senator of Illinois is an affirmative action candidate. Nonetheless, he will likely be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. This is my prediction: Hillary Clinton will quit Wednesday if her defeat in New Hampshire is in excess of 20 points or more. The odds of this occurring are minimally 50/50. 15-20 points is a grey area. 15 points or less—and she will behave like a nasty shrew towards Obama until it is deemed utterly pointless.
Jan 8, 2008 - 1:13 am 6. Larry J:When will they learn that “change” does not always equal “improvement.”
Going from alive to dead is a change. Most people probably wouldn’t consider that an improvement.
Jan 8, 2008 - 6:33 am 7. Wellspring:I like what Jonah Goldberg said in the corner (I’m sure he was quoting someone): “Don’t just do something, stand there!”
The great thing about pushing change is that it means all things to all people. The last major change we had in government was the post-9/11 reforms in law enforcement. The next big change before that was welfare reform. Before that, I think, was 1986 tax reform.
On second thought, based on past experience, I guess I’m a big fan of change after all.
Jan 8, 2008 - 7:48 am 8. Lem:Obama is becoming the most dangerous man in America.
He keeps asking people to come together but he doesn’t say where, how nor who is going to pay for transportation and who is going to feed them all. it’s irresponsible.
And if he did, could you imagine the number of OSHA regulations that would be broken having every man, woman and child in the US gathered together. The pick pockets, what if it rains?
There are just no enough port-o-potties in the world.
You would think someone running for president would know that.
Like Bill Clinton says, the media keeps giving him a pass
Jan 8, 2008 - 7:55 am 9. chi guy:“Change you can believe in”
A campaign slogan with a dangling preposition.
Jan 8, 2008 - 8:36 am 10. Roger:“That is the kind of errant [change] pedantry up with which I cannot put.”
Jan 8, 2008 - 9:27 am 11. valjean:Of course, change for change’s sake is a non-starter. But it feels good in the primaries and Clinton and Edwards look like toast simply because they’re not “new enough.”
Mark it: if this presidential race comes down — in broad terms — to “change” vs. “status quo” (represented by anyone reasonable on the GOP side) I humbly predict the latter will run the table.
Obama is just everyone’s darling right now because he’s perceived as the furthest from The Awful Present (you know, the long dark nightmare of the BusHitler Totalitarian State) without being too radical — thus the mushy message. When it comes time to actually say how and why he’ll be crushed like a bug.
Jan 8, 2008 - 9:51 am 12. Godzilla:Unspecified “change” out of a liberal’s lips equals:
more taxes
more governmennt control
anti-business policies
open borders
less security (get out of Iraq at all costs)
more pandering to special interest groups
protectionism (we rubes should only buy American anyway, right?)
Not that he’d be successful, but there’s the rising star’s idea of change. I actually prefer Hillary, and I hope that David Thomson is wrong in his prediction. I think Obama could actually end up making Jimmy Carter look good.
Jan 8, 2008 - 10:04 am 13. Lem:Maybe he’s talking about this ‘change’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8nU-q5YPRQ
Jan 8, 2008 - 12:14 pm 14. rrt: MD:To zafal
What are you talking about?
“This Obama that you spit on
as he tries to change our world
is immune to your consultations.
He is quite aware of what he’s going to do.”
Who is spitting on Obama?
What do you mean by “immune to your consultations”?
Comments like this feed the speculation that Barack Hussein Obama is a “sleeper” Muslim fanatic!
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:46 pm 15. rrt: MD:There is a strong smell of “manure” when a candidate promotes himself/herself as a candidate of change without describing what changes they are talking about. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand that Obama wants to change the White House incumbent and perhaps the complexion of Congress. But, other than that, what does he want to change, why does he want to change it, and how does he expect to make the changes. It seems to me that he is a lot of talk and no action. Remember that his major accomplishment in Illinois was to promote a bill to require TV records of police interrogations. Period! His major accomplishment in the US Senate has been his Presidential candidacy! Period!
Instead of “Change”, his motto could just as well be “Apply directly to the forehead”!
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:58 pm 16. Mike_Nargizian:Roger,
Come on man…. so he’s being vague about “change”…. like running for President or any political office has anything to do with being specific…. or as if any other politician running is going to be specific about issues either… Obama is up and Romney is down for the same reason… how they come off when you see them speak…. Romney comes off like a plastic corporate exec and Romney comes off like a cool regular guy period… that’s it in a nutshell…
Hillary comes off plastic and nauseating most of the time as well….
McCain comes off as a straight shooter for the most part…
Will issues carry the day at the end… its a combination of both…
I’m not voting for Obama and prefer he wasn’t the next President… but at the end of the day this saying applies -
“Don’t hate the player hate the game”
Mike
Jan 12, 2008 - 4:05 pm 17. Mike_Nargizian:correction -
Jan 12, 2008 - 4:07 pm 18. nilrem:how they come off I wrote Romney twice 2nd reference was to Obama obviously.
What many people and the news media are not covering, bias, I suppose. But Obama is best known from what he has written, not from any factual information about what he represented in College, who his friends were then or even what his core values are. He actually reserves the right to keep his core values to himself.
What the far left of the Democratic Party is pushing is not in the best interest of the general population, but rather an internet driven snow job that is pulling the wool over many eyes. However the silent majority in this country is over fifty and been through too many ruff times to believe the media coverage and internet spoofing.
May 26, 2008 - 3:21 pm