Barack Obama for President.

[Dan J 277]

Change isn't by definition something good. It can be, or it can be something horrendous. Change is a stupid slogan to base an election on in my opinion.

It has been what most politicians run on in some way or another. They all run on a platform of changing something for better or for worse.

True - but by defition there's an element of stating the obvious - of course a new government means "change"; but you can't base your election campaign on it - especially without really defining what it is that you are supposed to be "changing". Obama's problem is that he started out by suggesting idea that he was going to radically transform the political landscape - but his campaign seems to have a devil of time trying to define exactly what that means, and its been an oft-repeated criticism that people don't know what Obama really stands for.

Its a definite problem for him.

I understand your point. But looking at the overall electorate, I don't really think its a huge problem for him, least for the general election. Its going to become a greater factor if he actually gets into office.

When you have a choice between the status quo, that is not working for a lot of people, and something different. That different can be pretty vague and still win.

Simple, clear and concise messages are what matter when you are trying to get all the noise in the media landscape. Obama has that on his side. What is McCain's message/theme? Since he hasnt really defined one, he was given one, McSame.

But that doesn't mean Obama will automatically win. McCain will automatically get certain vote blocs. These are people that agree with Bush, or ascribe to label poltics and wont vote for anyone that is not a Republican. But the question is, are those blocs large enough to keep McCain compeditive without him creating a clear message?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are plenty of bad slogans. It depends what your campaign platform is - fixing the economy or creating jobs would be one thing, but "change"?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are plenty of bad slogans. It depends what your campaign platform is - fixing the economy or creating jobs would be one thing, but "change"?

The 'change' theme was used several times, by different candidates. You can bet he won't be using it when running for his second term.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - and you can get away with that if you establish in your campaign platform exactly what it is that you intend to change.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure - and you can get away with that if you establish in your campaign platform exactly what it is that you intend to change.

He hasn't?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - and you can get away with that if you establish in your campaign platform exactly what it is that you intend to change.

He hasn't?

Not in any specific detail, no. The whole focus of his "Change" argument thus far is to take back Washington from the lobbyists and bureaucrats. If he had said it was about drawing a close on 8 years of corruption and misrule, that would have been something else. He went in the other direction. He's made some statements about not accepting lobbyist money in his campaign - but nothing substantive that will shake-up the established order.

Oddly enough its the same argument that Arnold Schwarzenegger used to win the CA Governorship from Gray Davis - yet which is exactly what he's been criticized for failing to live up to.

In marketing terms "Change" is by itself a rather vague statement of intent. By way of a contrast - when totalitarian nutjobs start talking about "immigrants stealing jobs from hard-working citizens", for example, there's no confusion about where they stand or what they intend.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure - and you can get away with that if you establish in your campaign platform exactly what it is that you intend to change.

He hasn't?

Not in any specific detail, no. The whole focus of his "Change" argument thus far is to take back Washington from the lobbyists and bureaucrats. If he had said it was about drawing a close on 8 years of corruption and misrule, that would have been something else. He went in the other direction. He's made some statements about not accepting lobbyist money in his campaign - but nothing substantive that will shake-up the established order.

Oddly enough its the same argument that Arnold Schwarzenegger used to win the CA Governorship from Gray Davis - yet which is exactly what he's been criticized for failing to live up to.

In marketing terms "Change" is by itself a rather vague statement of intent. By way of a contrast - when totalitarian nutjobs start talking about "immigrants stealing jobs from hard-working citizens", for example, there's no confusion about where they stand or what they intend.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

He's as specific as needed to clarify just what kind of change he's talking about. I'm not disagreeing that it's rhetoric, but that doesn't mean it's empty rhetoric. There is a difference.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - and you can get away with that if you establish in your campaign platform exactly what it is that you intend to change.

He hasn't?

Not in any specific detail, no. The whole focus of his "Change" argument thus far is to take back Washington from the lobbyists and bureaucrats. If he had said it was about drawing a close on 8 years of corruption and misrule, that would have been something else. He went in the other direction. He's made some statements about not accepting lobbyist money in his campaign - but nothing substantive that will shake-up the established order.

Oddly enough its the same argument that Arnold Schwarzenegger used to win the CA Governorship from Gray Davis - yet which is exactly what he's been criticized for failing to live up to.

In marketing terms "Change" is by itself a rather vague statement of intent. By way of a contrast - when totalitarian nutjobs start talking about "immigrants stealing jobs from hard-working citizens", for example, there's no confusion about where they stand or what they intend.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

He's as specific as needed to clarify just what kind of change he's talking about. I'm not disagreeing that it's rhetoric, but that doesn't mean it's empty rhetoric. There is a difference.

I seen that before - nothing wrong with his policy ideas, but the problem he presents at the outset of the manifesto about out of control lobbying and institutional corruption are so vague that its surprising to me that he'd make it the centerpiece of his campaign platform.

[Peikko 1,575]

Change isn't by definition something good. It can be, or it can be something horrendous. Change is a stupid slogan to base an election on in my opinion.

How about, "Black - it's the new White?" I just don't get why people get riled up over campaign slogans as if Obama invented campaign slogans...they are what they are.

Here's some more great ones from past presidential campaigns...

Turn the Rascals Out

Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine. Continental Liar from the state of Maine.

We Polked you in '44, We shall Pierce you in '52.

Hoo but Hoover?

In Your Heart, You Know He's Right.

In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts.

It's Time to Change America.

Kinder, Gentler Nation

Riled up? No, disappointed by the lack of policy clarification, hugely.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Riled up? No, disappointed by the lack of policy clarification, hugely.

Well, you're not going to find policy clarification from soundbites on the 6 o'clock news.

[Peikko 1,575]

For the record Jabber, I don't watch tv news because it's pretty crappy no matter what station is broadcasting. Nice try at a deflection though.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the record Jabber, I don't watch tv news because it's pretty crappy no matter what station is broadcasting. Nice try at a deflection though.

So how or where have you seen or read any of the candidates speaking about their ideas for policy change?

[Peikko 1,575]

What is the point of your question? Are you saying that unless I have 'sourced' my news through a particular outlet I will have missed it? That doesn't make sense. Any political candidate who wants to get elected should be ensuring that their message is broadcast far and wide. Barack's 'change' message hasn't got beyond the slogan stage anywhere. The media is giving more coverage to Barack than McCain at the moment as well, what with is spur of the moment visit to Afghanistan so it's not like he doesn't have the means to do so.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I had some psycho co-workers making comments about him at work tonight...I never knew one was racist until that moment...

...I'm still disturbed by it.

As racist as Obama himself?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What is the point of your question? Are you saying that unless I have 'sourced' my news through a particular outlet I will have missed it? That doesn't make sense. Any political candidate who wants to get elected should be ensuring that their message is broadcast far and wide. Barack's 'change' message hasn't got beyond the slogan stage anywhere. The media is giving more coverage to Barack than McCain at the moment as well, what with is spur of the moment visit to Afghanistan so it's not like he doesn't have the means to do so.

You said you're disappointed from his lack of clarity. I'm asking you based on what source of information you getting that impression from if not TV news? It's fair to question what source you're basing your argument on.