Not from where I sit. You cannot tell me otherwise, because I lived through it. This is not the first campaign to hear the words change, new leadership, and hope for the future led by a new generation. The year of Orwell saw this very approach, and it failed miserably before our very eyes. Take a look at these Gary Hart ads from 1984:
Now compare the Hart ads with one of Obama's ads:
How about this one?
It's easy to see that Obama's campaign is better able to use modern technology, with much of the credit going to a larger bank account. But the message isn't any different. The proposals are just as weak, the rhetoric is just as emotional. The packaging may be better, but the substance is unchanged.
This isn't the kind of change I can believe in. If it were, I would have believed it 24 years ago.
3 comments:
Good catch. Although Hart pales in comparison to Obama in the charisma dept (can I say pales?).
Like the recent Dem congressman who admitted they stretched the truth about getting us out of Iraq to win in 2006, that's what Obama (and the dem machine behind him) are selling.
You're right--if that's change I'd hate to see status quo.
//can I say pales?//
You can here.
When a local newspaper asked the man on the street, "Who should pay for public television and radio," citizen Richard Guess of Charlestown answered, "Congress should continue paying for it, because if they don't, the taxpayers will end up paying for it."
And there you have it folks. This is exactly why Obama is a nominee for the White House, and why our country has never been in deeper trouble.
Also, note that Barack Obama told CNBC that he didn't object to $4.00 a gallon for gasoline. Considering Obama's income, of course he doesn't object. But of course, if he doesn't object, then can he be serious about doing anything about the gasoline problem? Or any other problem?
Just asking . . .
Post a Comment