Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
I had noted in another thread that one of the benefits of using such a vague term as "change" as the theme for a campaign is that you don't have to set a baseline. So, when people ask whether something is really a "change," Obama can shape the baseline; he can say that it's change from the Republican way of doing things, or change from the current administration, however he wants to frame it. It's not necessarily being disingenuous, just careful and creative with wording.
That said, I agree with RC in that it seems a bit odd to trumpet change, but then to rely on (admittedly capable and intelligent) Clinton appointees (also in the idea that the Clinton era was somewhat overrated, and has become more overrated in light of the Bush II presidency). These are people who, not too long ago, were part of the White House machinery, who no doubt have relationships with Clinton-era favored lobbyists, and who know how to work the system, so to speak.
But, as I said, it all depends on how you frame "change."
|
Honestly, I don't care so much about "change" as the "new era of politics" rhetoric - change can eat my ass, because it's nonsense, but one of the actual hopeful messages from Obama was the potential for an era where politicians thought less of their own well-being ("Will this help me get re-elected?") and more about what actually makes sense. From that angle, hey, maybe all the old Clinton people
are those people - but it would seem that Obama's harsh words about the Clintons during the campaign would speak otherwise, and it would be quite the coincidence.
It's more awkward than anything, I think, because I guess I expected something different. My favorite line about this election was that, in the face of two mediocre choices, you should generally pick the smarter one - I just hope that intelligence advantage isn't kowtowing to other interests.