Rivals in rush to embrace the only message that’s counting

[cal04]

Tim Reid and Tom Baldwin in New Hampshire
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3142807.ece

Hillary Clinton says that she has been delivering change for years. Mitt Romney claims that he is the only Republican who can achieve change. John Edwards says that he fights for change. Mike Huckabee says that he personifies change.

Suddenly “change” has become the buzzword of the 2008 campaign, a sign of how Barack Obama’s victory over Mrs Clinton in Iowa - built on his message of change – has not only reshaped the Democratic race, but infected the Republican contest too.

Two days before the New Hampshire primaries, the main candidates on both sides were adopting Mr Obama’s message, with the most heated exchanges in appearances across the Granite State focused on who was best able to propel the United States into a new political age.

In perhaps the most brazen attempt to claim the mantle of change, Mr Romney has reinvented his White House campaign after defeat in Iowa by telling New Hampshire voters that he is the Republican equivalent of Mr Obama, a message ridiculed by rivals.

[lapfog_1]

1. Yes, we want a change...

A change in policies and a change in personnel...

Change in policies eliminates Rudy, Huckabee, Romney, and especially McCain.

Change in personnel eliminates Clinton, Richardson.

So, among front runners who is left... Ron Paul (whoa! not that much change!), Obama, Edwards.

BTW, unless Hillary has been moonlighting for Brinks for the last 25 years, she has not been "delivering change"...

[bemildred]

2. "Change" is bid, do I hear "radical change"?

How about "immediate radical change"? Anybody got the guts for that?

[Skittles]

3. the word 'radical' scares people, bemildred

the corporate media has associated it with those long-haired Berkely hippie types :o

[bemildred]

4. I remember that.

I remember that it was very chic to be "radical" back then. I remember that a lot of the "radicals" were dufuses. On the other hand, we DO need radical change. Things are seriously screwed up, and gradual is not going to do the job.

[Demeter]

5. I'd Be Grateful for Gradual

To do gradual, all one needs to do is lock up the criminals and enforce the laws. Radical comes later, when the laws get cleaned up and the deconstruction of the economy stops.

[bemildred]

6. So would I. It's not like I am a fan of revolutions. They tend to get "messy" in Dumbsfeldt's phrase

Somethings these things have a mind of their own though. In an emergency you don't just tap the brakes. I think FDR is a good model, although being a member in good standing of the ruling class, he did not attack the pillars of the corporate monopoly production system, rather he did the minimum necessary at the time to save it. Then along came WWII and the rise of the national security (boy is that a misnomer) state.

[NorthCarolina]

7. Kucinich does

and I plan to vote for that radical change in the NC primary.

[insanad]

8. They're playing checkers, Obama is playing Chess

It seems that the old "Game" of politics is being played by the Republicans and Hilary Clinton but Obama long ago recognized that most of the American people have embraced something that goes way beyond a "Game" and is a virtual experience on par with the latest coolest, fastest, most advanced video games where even WE THE PEOPLE get a say in the outcome. Can you imagine, regular Americans getting a say in their future??? Let the 50's sitcom politics of the Repugs and other "Lucy's" goof their way across the stage. It's fun to see their antics and the silly old fashioned and outdated, clueless, out of touch gaffes. The ignorant bias's, the backward intellect, the stuffy rhetoric is all something that would have played well in 1958, but it's 2008 and America and the world at large is ready for someone who has been in touch with reality. We're ready to co-own the future with a leader who doesn't just lead, but inspires cooperation and ingenuity to solve the disparate and desparate problems our nation faces. We're ready for a polyglot mixed race, multi-cultural, intellectual and open minded PERSON to ride beside us as we carefully pick our way out of the horrific past and into a better future. Here's an article by some Harvard guy who seems to have his finger on the button.

Barack Obama – The Leader We Need


By Dr. Michael Maccoby

Candidates in the primaries argue about whether experience or leadership for change is more important for a president. What I learned when I spoke at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California last month is that the young professionals there recognize that profound social change is already taking place. They want leaders at work and in Washington who understand the evolving world and make them collaborators in creating a better future. Experience without foresight and purpose is a drag, not a value.

Starting in the 1970s, people like the Googlers have been growing up in a world that has shaped them differently from their parents who were raised in the 1950s and 1960s. Then, most families were headed by a sole male wage earner. Today, typically both parents work, and more families are headed by a single woman than there are traditional families. Then, large national corporations promised lifetime employment. Now, global companies can’t promise employment and employees are no longer loyal. Then, managers were almost all white men and the leadership model was paternalistic. Now, young professionals reject autocratic leaders and have worked for all types of bosses. Then, only researchers and financial companies used computers. Now, computers and the internet have transformed work, products, personal interactions, access to information, and knowledge creation. Then managers knew subordinates’ jobs better than they did. Now, with the rapid advance of knowledge, subordinates often know more. What they seek in a leader is authenticity and a clear sense of purpose that is meaningful to them…so much for experience.

The result has been the emergence of a new social character which I call interactive in contrast to the bureaucratic social character that dominated the last century. When I described interactives, my listeners at Google recognized themselves. All the presidential candidates had visited Google, and almost all said they most liked Barack Obama. I asked why, and the answer was that he understood the challenges of the global economy. Obama emphasized America’s need to provide opportunity, not by walling off the country, but by supporting education and innovation. They agreed with him that government had a role in funding scientific research, especially to protect the environment and gain energy independence. They saw Obama as inviting them to be collaborators, not followers. Their views reminded me of an American president, also from Illinois, whose limited government experience was a brief time in the state legislature and one term in Congress. As president, he grew in office and had the foresight that the growing industry of America needed government to support railroads and technical colleges. And he inspired people with a vision of realizing the promise of the Declaration of Independence. Of course, I was thinking of Abraham Lincoln.

=======================================================
The Leaders We Need: And What Makes Us Follow
By Dr. Michael Maccoby
Harvard Business School Press, November 6, 2007