That Other Kind of Change

17.01.2008

Mike, I agree that the Gallup poll you just cited has some good news for Hillary. But I think the subject of "change" really involves two separate questions. The Gallup poll got at one of them--whether people want specific policy changes (what Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are all selling) or broader systemic reform (what only Obama and Edwards are selling). That they seem more interested in the first bodes well for her--though Obama would say he doesn't favor reform for the sake of reform (or bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship), but as a more effective way of getting these changes enacted.

The other change-related question is a little more superficial but still important (maybe more so): Who do you want implementing those changes--someone new and exciting or someone old and familiar? I think this is where Obama enjoys a potential advantage. "New" can be a little scary and is almost by definition uncertain, while "old/familiar" can be comforting. But it also (again, almost by definition) carries a lot more baggage.

There are a lot of voters who, even if they trust Hillary to bring about health care reform and end the war, just don't feeling like spending four or eight more years with the personalities who defined the 90s. If Obama's going to win, he's going to have to draw those feelings to the surface more explicitly.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:43 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

there are three types of change:

1. policy change

2. process change

3. A fresh face!

Obama is 1, 2, and 3

Edwards is 1 and 2

Hillary is 1

That's why Obama is the change candidate....

January 17, 2008 4:03 PM

mschol17 said:

Every administration represents some policy change. That's nothing new; nobody campaigns saying "Everything is going to be exactly the same-- we're doing nothing!"

In my opinion, the most significant change Obama represents is honesty and transparency in government. Listen to his Nevada interview where his says he wants to put the health care discussions on CSPAN so that the American people will know what people are giving up and what the positives and negatives are. After the Bush White House, this seems like a blast of fresh air.

January 17, 2008 4:43 PM

BHLnyc said:

Virginiacentrist hits the nail on the head. That number three can't be underestimated, especially when you go outside the U.S. borders, where a complete rebranding -- starting with the packaging -- will make a huge difference in our ability to work cooperatively with our allies and, perhaps, even our enemies.

January 17, 2008 4:52 PM

And not just outside of our borders. Also, in the general election, where swing voters mindlessly consider "change" and the "fresh face" factor gives Obama extra cred over retreads Edwards and Clinton.

January 17, 2008 4:53 PM

ralphnelle said:

I hate to say it, guys, but TNR is beginning to feel like the Sportscenter of politics, the amoral who's up and who's down chatter that distracts us from what matters.

HRC has become the democrats' Rove, and we shouldn't tolerate it. If this keeps up, she is going to shred the democratic party come November:

blog.washingtonpost.com/.../taken_for_granite.html

January 17, 2008 5:02 PM

propositionjoe said:

"There are a lot of voters who, even if they trust Hillary to bring about health care reform and end the war, just don't feeling like spending four or eight more years with the personalities who defined the 90s. If Obama's going to win, he's going to have to draw those feelings to the surface more explicitly."

--Maybe this is why Obama recently compared himself, however indirectly, to Reagan and to 2008 and to 1980 very directly. He wants to be liberalism's Reagan (isn't that FDR?), and he is beginning to make that case. That's okay with me, but I wish he'd pepper more of those Reagan references with some references to FDR. I'd feel better about that kind of messaging. It would be Fair and Balanced!

January 17, 2008 5:44 PM

psantillana said:

I can't think that drawing voters' attention - explicitly - to their weariness with Clinton's personality could help Obama. He would look like a jerk - like what people [mistakenly] thought he was being when he said she was "likeable enough". Just being consistently different from her in style is what he does best, and the voters will feel what they feel on that front, or they won't.

What I wish he'd draw attention to is his own actual record of change - his, you know, experience. Because he does have it.

January 17, 2008 6:13 PM

rozenson said:

"I hate to say it, guys, but TNR is beginning to feel like the Sportscenter of politics, the amoral who's up and who's down chatter that distracts us from what matters."

Look, SOME strategy-based discussion is necessary. It's important now that votes are actually being cast that we get a feel for what direction things are headed, how things look.

If you want more substantive discussion, this magazine has just churned out an issue full of in-depth looks at the race. Blogs are more appropriate places for horse-race journalism.

January 17, 2008 8:51 PM