During the primaries, Obama managed to catch fire with an
amorphous message of “change.”  The lack
of a clear definition worked to his benefit.  To some, it meant a candidate who opposed the
war from the beginning.  To others, it
meant a different kind of politics, elevating civil discourse, empowering
individuals and freeing government from the corrupting influence of lobbyists.  Others hoped to usher in an era of sweeping
liberalism in contrast to the “poll-tested” “small-bore” initiatives and
perceived centrism of the Clintons.  Still others saw in Obama himself the personification
of change, of reconciliation between red and blue, liberal and conservative,
and most important, black and white.  By presenting himself as the candidate of change - a concept that he allowed to mean different things to different people - Obama skillfully to set himself up as an alternative for a Party fed up with leaders perceived as having failed
to stand up to the Bush administration. 

But by failing to offer a concise and compelling definition of “change,” however, the Obama campaign seems to have lost the initiative.  It has been distressing to watch over the past few weeks as 26-year Senate veteran McCain, representing the party of the deeply unpopular incumbent has managed to wrest the mantle of “change” away from Obama. 

Sure, McCain’s message of “change” seems to consist entirely of his opposition to earmarks (true in his case, patently false in the case of his running mate), an infinitesimal portion of the federal budget that mostly goes to fund worthy projects such as hospitals and schools.  But by focusing on a few extreme examples, he has captured some of the disgust with Washington that fueled Obama's success and portrayed himself as a genuine reformer.  Similarly, while the rest of his party, egged on by his noxious running mate, spews a steady stream of toxic rhetoric, McCain himself points to the few occasions in which he has bucked his party to further his bona fides as someone not afraid to take on his own party. 

The challenge for Obama now is to reclaim the change mantle.  Complaining about McCain’s underhanded and dishonest campaign tactics will not do.  Obama’s response thus far is eerily reminiscent of the Republican primary of 2000, when one George W. Bush beat back John McCain’s “reform” message by re-branding himself a “reformer with results.”  McCain’s response was outrage over the sleazy campaign of his opponent.  We all know who won the nomination. 

Yes, Obama needs to call out the deep dishonesty of the “straight talking” McCain, and to remind voters that on matters of significance, he really does represent “more of the same.”  But to capture the imagination of voters, Obama needs to put some meat and bones on his message of “change” that will set him up as the real alternative.  In other words, Obama needs to articulate more specifically the type of change he stands for, to give people a reason to vote for him. 

As always, I am interested in people’s thoughts as to how best to accomplish this, or alternatively, as to the utter pointlessness of such an exercise, and by extension, this post.