Why did I suspect that you opened with a joke just so you could eventually say this? You're reducing and dismissing everything else he says. Have you even listened to his "race speech" from the other day? One of the most eloquent and intelligent statements about where we, as a nation, are regarding race relations. I believe this speech will have historical significance far beyond the simple expedience of dealing with Rev. Wright's angry rhetoric.

But aside from that, and the reason the joke works, is the "change" is not a slogan for Obama. It IS his platform. And yes, it was Clinton's and Reagan's, too.

Ho-freaking-Hum. Cherny is right. Change, Schmange. That's why the joke works. It's pablum.



No-one is saying we don't want a change. What does that have to do with actually delivering change?

It's a standard political strategy, and it's hollow as an easter bunny. If the voters want "change," the change-candidate wins. If the voters like it as it is, the status-quo candidate wins. OMG, freaking boring.


Just as Obama's been until this week. He should get into trouble more often. Brings out the best, apparently.

See, and I guess that's what most of us who have been supporters from early on already knew. And perhaps it's BECAUSE he's so good that it's flown under the radar. I mentioned it in the other thread, but he was inches away from being laughed out of the race very early on due to a comment he made about Iran. But his response was SO good, and made SO much sense that the story dropped out of the media almost instantly, because he cut straight through the bullsh*t and said, "I said what I said and I meant what I said and the criticism I'm getting for it is manufactured b.s. based on shortcut rhetoric, not based in reality," which is pretty much the same thing he said in the race speech.

Yes, I admired his Iraq statement.

Not that I blame a guy in a contest, but it seems he's played it pretty safe after that ... until this week.

Less of the "hope, change, we have the power" platitudes, and more of the nitty gritty adult talk - - that would please me.


But whateever. I've had my vote, and I didn't vote for him. If he's the nominee, I will gladly vote for him. He hardly needs to please the likes of me. But I'll be more impressed to the extent he speaks less platitudely and more adultly.


None of that will please me a spinch as much as if he actually governs a tenth as good as he talks.

But today's general society is afraid and wary of someone who comes out and makes a bold statement for the sake of making a bold statement. Then one becomes accused of place the race, gender or whatever card. I'm not saying I agree with it, but candidates need to be very close to the vest with their public statements lest it be sound-bited against them.

No Kevy. I disagree. His move was a success because it didn't play by the game Alex so brilliantly outlined above.

So why not do more of it? It broke the mold, as was a far better success than the playing-it-safe game. Bravo. More please.


How about less "we need change" and more "here's a very specific change we need" - followed by "here's a couple of concrete ways I propose that change be attained" - and then "And here's what I can actually do as president to promote or help implement that change?"


Why stick with the platitudes the Onion can so successfully satirize when the meat & potatoes works so much better?

Honey, full disclosure in the original post.

And don't get me wrong, I think the guy is charismatic, a great speaker, and would make a good President. (Hillary would just make a BETTER one imho). If it comes down to Obama vs. McCain, I'm voting for Obama.

iSm stated my feelings better than I could in the above post.

I think it was in the other thread where you said you haven't listened to many of his speeches. So are you basing this on your own experience of what he offers or the filters of others?

Because when I listen to him speak (and while I haven't heard this speech yet, I have heard a fair number of his stump speeches) I do see a fair amount of what you're asking for. And of course, you're not going to hear a lot of in depth policy discussion in stump speeches or debates but I do hear parts of it. And certainly not really any less than from other candidates working under the same strange structure of campaign speeched.

And if you want concrete proposals for how he will move towards achieving the high level changes he talks about he has a booklet at his web site that does give detail.

Now, they may not be convincing or you may not agree they'll have the impacts suggested (I certainly disagree with many of them in their usefulness our outcome) but he does give a plan.

And if that isn't enough detail on specific plans and proposals, here is a page where you can find it all broken down even further. Each issue page goes into what he sees as the problem and specific proposals to fix it and sources to other information.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

If you drill down you can find similar information on Clinton's site here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Alex, I linked to all that stuff way early on in the Yes We Can thread. Some people decided to ignore it then, so why would they click and read now?

Anyone who says he doesn't talk issues has not read or listened to his issue speeches and writings....and yes, they DO exist, they are all over the place, but it's easier to pretend that sound bite speeches are his entire platform and dismiss him.