CHANGING Your Campaign Theme??
Here's something to think about: In 2004, the election was about national security. The economy hadn't yet tanked to the point it is now and 9/11 was still fresh enough in our minds that people were most concerned with having a president that could handle the conflicts in the Middle East, deal properly with Islamic terrorism and keep us safe. And voters viewed that person to be Bush.
It was likely a no-win situation for Kerry because the majority of the country probably felt that Bush was the one who was in office when 9/11 happened, he's gotten us into the wars that followed, so we'd better not mix things up at the top if we want to keep this country safe.
It was an election about national security. So what did Kerry decide to do? He tried to shift his message and image by playing up his status as a war veteran (something Bush could not claim) and try to make a case for his candidacy in the military affairs/national security battleground. Obviously, it did not work.
Jump ahead now to 2008 - this election is about CHANGE. The economy is in the toilet, the middle class has dissolved away, the war in Iraq is unfounded and unpopular and overall the country is hungry for a CHANGE at the top. So logically, the Democrats should be considered favorites and Obama has presented himself pretty well as the candidate of change.
And just as the republicans start to feel things slipping away, what do they do? They completely change their strategy and message and out of the blue, at their convention, all of a sudden THEY declare that they are the ticket for change.
Huh?? Seriously? Well, shockingly, it seems to have helped in the short term, partly due to the interest in Sarah Palin. But seriously, are voters really going to get brainwashed into the crazy notion that John McCain is the candidate for CHANGE in this election? That's absurd. There are no facts to back it up and it just doesn't make any sense. Hopefully, like in 2004, it won't work and Americans will be smart enough to see through the dust and re-assess the issues, facts and truths about what they want in this election, and which candidate (Obama) actually brings them what they want (CHANGE).
It was likely a no-win situation for Kerry because the majority of the country probably felt that Bush was the one who was in office when 9/11 happened, he's gotten us into the wars that followed, so we'd better not mix things up at the top if we want to keep this country safe.
It was an election about national security. So what did Kerry decide to do? He tried to shift his message and image by playing up his status as a war veteran (something Bush could not claim) and try to make a case for his candidacy in the military affairs/national security battleground. Obviously, it did not work.
Jump ahead now to 2008 - this election is about CHANGE. The economy is in the toilet, the middle class has dissolved away, the war in Iraq is unfounded and unpopular and overall the country is hungry for a CHANGE at the top. So logically, the Democrats should be considered favorites and Obama has presented himself pretty well as the candidate of change.
And just as the republicans start to feel things slipping away, what do they do? They completely change their strategy and message and out of the blue, at their convention, all of a sudden THEY declare that they are the ticket for change.
Huh?? Seriously? Well, shockingly, it seems to have helped in the short term, partly due to the interest in Sarah Palin. But seriously, are voters really going to get brainwashed into the crazy notion that John McCain is the candidate for CHANGE in this election? That's absurd. There are no facts to back it up and it just doesn't make any sense. Hopefully, like in 2004, it won't work and Americans will be smart enough to see through the dust and re-assess the issues, facts and truths about what they want in this election, and which candidate (Obama) actually brings them what they want (CHANGE).
posted by Pappy | 12:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home