Comments on: Ch-ch-ch-changes http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:21:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: andreas04: close to attraction http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366567 andreas04: close to attraction Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:11:30 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366567 [...] BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Ch-ch-ch-changes  Change: The emptiest word in politics [...] [...] BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Ch-ch-ch-changes  Change: The emptiest word in politics [...]

]]> By: Zac Echola http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366549 Zac Echola Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:25:27 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366549 Every campaign has stupid cute talking points. Edwards has Two Americas, Obama has Hope, Clinton has Mammoths. But I really, really hate it when people get hung up on these slogans. It doesn't surprise me that a large group of kneejerk blog commenters fall into the traps set by sloganeers, but to argue the slogans without actually looking at the platforms? Ha! That's taking 'indignant moron' to whole new level. Clearly the candidates are more than their slogans: http://barackobama.com/issues http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/ Read! Please stop being such lazy armchair politicians, people. Ugh. Every campaign has stupid cute talking points. Edwards has Two Americas, Obama has Hope, Clinton has Mammoths. But I really, really hate it when people get hung up on these slogans. It doesn’t surprise me that a large group of kneejerk blog commenters fall into the traps set by sloganeers, but to argue the slogans without actually looking at the platforms? Ha! That’s taking ‘indignant moron’ to whole new level. Clearly the candidates are more than their slogans:

http://barackobama.com/issues

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

Read!

Please stop being such lazy armchair politicians, people. Ugh.

]]> By: John C Abell http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366543 John C Abell Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:45:22 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366543 Missing the forest for the trees? Yes, "change agency" was ruined for everybody by corrupt consultants hired by even more corrupt clients to pretty-up programs intended to change nothing -- sorry, make things worse. But dismissing change agency -- in this election could be the agent is Obama, could be somebody else, could be nobody -- because the word "change" has been overused and flagrantly co-opted (by ... Hillary? Romney? Name-of-CEO-you-hate-here?) strikes me as spectacularly disingenuous. Missing the forest for the trees?

Yes, “change agency” was ruined for everybody by corrupt consultants hired by even more corrupt clients to pretty-up programs intended to change nothing — sorry, make things worse.

But dismissing change agency — in this election could be the agent is Obama, could be somebody else, could be nobody — because the word “change” has been overused and flagrantly co-opted (by … Hillary? Romney? Name-of-CEO-you-hate-here?) strikes me as spectacularly disingenuous.

]]> By: Sean http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366530 Sean Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:53:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366530 "Change" is another way to say "I'm going to be different". I think the popularity of the word is directly related to the fact that we're never happy with our politicians (until after the fact) and hence are always looking for something new. Maybe people just want to know SOMETHING will be different and it almost doesn't matter what. That would be a sad commentary. I also find it interesting that people equate success in politics to experience. Experience in any profession has diminishing returns rather quickly and politics are no different. Personally, I'd prefer someone not stooped in the ways Washington works to someone with 20 years of US political experience. “Change” is another way to say “I’m going to be different”. I think the popularity of the word is directly related to the fact that we’re never happy with our politicians (until after the fact) and hence are always looking for something new. Maybe people just want to know SOMETHING will be different and it almost doesn’t matter what. That would be a sad commentary.

I also find it interesting that people equate success in politics to experience. Experience in any profession has diminishing returns rather quickly and politics are no different. Personally, I’d prefer someone not stooped in the ways Washington works to someone with 20 years of US political experience.

]]> By: Jeff McNeill http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366529 Jeff McNeill Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:28:58 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366529 Um, think you got the wrong candidate with this one. Obama has a plan and a set of policies. The candidate of "change" is ole Mitt. The changeable candidate is the one who shifts positions, the shifty candidate. Um, think you got the wrong candidate with this one. Obama has a plan and a set of policies. The candidate of “change” is ole Mitt. The changeable candidate is the one who shifts positions, the shifty candidate.

]]> By: Andy Oram http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366528 Andy Oram Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:22:07 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366528 Candidates have to spout a lot of rhetoric they disdain. All the candidates have worked hard in real government and positions and know the tough thinking and negotiating it takes to accomplish anything, so they must feel even more cynical than we do about the sound-bites the media and public demand from them. My informal take on Obama goes back to his days as an Alinsky-style community organizer. He seems to be a process-oriented guy, as opposed to program-oriented. Process is hard to sell, hard to describe before it happens, and hard to describe abstractly. So don't blame Obama if his sound-bites sound empty. He's not comfortable stating programs, and usually offers flawed ones (but who doesn't?) when he has to. But remember, in politics, process is where it's usually at. I believe he'd be good at process, and therefore a good president. In the interest of full disclosure, I am probably going to cast my primary vote for Kucinich, but Obama has risen to be my top choice of the "electable" candidates. The focus on process over program does worry me a bit. The day Obama (maybe) takes the oath of office and sits down at his desk, he'll be faced with program decisions. It's quite likely that someone, somewhere in the world, will do something provocative to test the new president, and I'm not confident Obama will make the right decision. Particularly in the absence of time for a process-based approach. Candidates have to spout a lot of rhetoric they disdain. All the candidates have worked hard in real government and positions and know the tough thinking and negotiating it takes to accomplish anything, so they must feel even more cynical than we do about the sound-bites the media and public demand from them.

My informal take on Obama goes back to his days as an Alinsky-style community organizer. He seems to be a process-oriented guy, as opposed to program-oriented. Process is hard to sell, hard to describe before it happens, and hard to describe abstractly. So don’t blame Obama if his sound-bites sound empty.

He’s not comfortable stating programs, and usually offers flawed ones (but who doesn’t?) when he has to. But remember, in politics, process is where it’s usually at. I believe he’d be good at process, and therefore a good president.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am probably going to cast my primary vote for Kucinich, but Obama has risen to be my top choice of the “electable” candidates.

The focus on process over program does worry me a bit. The day Obama (maybe) takes the oath of office and sits down at his desk, he’ll be faced with program decisions. It’s quite likely that someone, somewhere in the world, will do something provocative to test the new president, and I’m not confident Obama will make the right decision. Particularly in the absence of time for a process-based approach.

]]> By: Mike http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366526 Mike Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:32:10 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366526 Obsessed much? Breath big fella... Obsessed much? Breath big fella…

]]> By: Harry http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366525 Harry Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:26:51 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366525 When reading these diatribes against "change," one should remember Jeff has previously announced his support of Hillary. His rants against the use of "change" all translate to "Damn it! Obama's whipping Hillary's ass! This isn't supposed to be happening!!" The wind has shifted against Hillary, and to Hillary supporters like Jeff it all seems so. . . . . . . unfair. Jeff's post above is just a tantrum he's throwing, much like Hillary's little crying jag yesterday. Both will get over it in time. It's true Obama is something of a hologram----he looks real, but nothing's really there. But he's someone you can feel comfortable with, in contrast to Hillary (you get the strong feeling someone like Hillary inspired Bob Dylan to write "Just Like a Woman"). While Obama's accomplishments are indeed modest and obscure, Hillary's main accomplishments were essentially keeping a stiff upper lip in the face of Bill's serial infidelities. Big wow. . . . While neither Hillary nor Obama deserve to be president, the Republican crew is even more depressing than those two. It's going to be a long, cruel year! When reading these diatribes against “change,” one should remember Jeff has previously announced his support of Hillary. His rants against the use of “change” all translate to “Damn it! Obama’s whipping Hillary’s ass! This isn’t supposed to be happening!!” The wind has shifted against Hillary, and to Hillary supporters like Jeff it all seems so. . . . . . . unfair. Jeff’s post above is just a tantrum he’s throwing, much like Hillary’s little crying jag yesterday. Both will get over it in time.

It’s true Obama is something of a hologram—-he looks real, but nothing’s really there. But he’s someone you can feel comfortable with, in contrast to Hillary (you get the strong feeling someone like Hillary inspired Bob Dylan to write “Just Like a Woman”). While Obama’s accomplishments are indeed modest and obscure, Hillary’s main accomplishments were essentially keeping a stiff upper lip in the face of Bill’s serial infidelities. Big wow. . . .

While neither Hillary nor Obama deserve to be president, the Republican crew is even more depressing than those two. It’s going to be a long, cruel year!

]]> By: Stefano Buliani http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366522 Stefano Buliani Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:59:00 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/08/ch-ch-ch-changes/#comment-366522 I don't live in the US but have followed the last three elections with interest (starting from the first Bush jr). Being a programmer I do appreciate Obama's approach to technology issues more than the part-ideas-part-cliché expressed by all the other candidates. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/) As far as rhetoric goes I can honestly say that I find each and every candidate absolutely appalling. Having listened to all their important speeches this is the only thing that comes to mind: "I have never heard such a tawdry epitaph to intelligence." Well, except for Mr Berlusconi in Italy perhaps. Is Mr Obama really a pink tablet? I think what Polygram meant was "tabula rasa". I don’t live in the US but have followed the last three elections with interest (starting from the first Bush jr).

Being a programmer I do appreciate Obama’s approach to technology issues more than the part-ideas-part-cliché expressed by all the other candidates. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/)

As far as rhetoric goes I can honestly say that I find each and every candidate absolutely appalling.
Having listened to all their important speeches this is the only thing that comes to mind: “I have never heard such a tawdry epitaph to intelligence.”
Well, except for Mr Berlusconi in Italy perhaps.

Is Mr Obama really a pink tablet? I think what Polygram meant was “tabula rasa”.

]]>