Via Sadly, No!

Wouldn’t it be great if the 2008 presidential election to determine who will succeed the man likely to be rated as the worst president in American history was about something other than an amorphous concept that has been so diluted as a brand that almost every candidate on both sides of the aisle is running, to some degree or another, on the platform of “change”?

In this particular order, I would be much happier if the 2008 presidential election was primarily about the war in Iraq, restoring the Constitution, and getting health care for every American.

I’m sure defenders of the candidates (and let’s be clear, that is most definitely a plural term) pushing change as their dominant narrative would argue that by “change” they mean their candidate would do stuff on all of those things. And it’d be different. That may be true, but it’s not what the election has been about. It’s been about change and experience. Or, as I’m arguing, nothing.

To be sure, I’m an equal opportunity cranky observer. What’s true about “change” is also true about the experience meme. Like change, it is watered down and fails to capture anything substantive.

Things get really disjointed when you have candidates like Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd (and sometimes Hillary Clinton) trying to shoehorn themselves as people who represent both change and experience. Double whammy! You have thoughtful candidates with diverse plans for the major issues trying to shrink wrap themselves in two conflicting yet vacuous brands that resist discussion of these very issues that make these candidates worthwhile. Of course, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson have all ended their campaigns, unable to find traction on substance amidst narratives lacking in explicit meaning.

Mostly, this is just a point to recognize that our country is worse off when politics is adjudicated by who is putting forth the best marketing and not who is putting forth the best plans for how they will govern.