4 ms·

Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan was all smoke and mirrors and was pretty much meaningless because he never fully explained what those meant to him. In an absen

by Jerry2 10y ago

Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan was all smoke and mirrors and was pretty much meaningless because he never fully explained what those meant to him. In an absence of a concrete definition, people just assumed that 'change' was whatever their pet cause was and Obama's team never corrected anyone. It was truly a stroke of genius. Unfortunately, he had no chance of making any meaningful change when Wall Street picked his whole cabinet for him [0]. It was just impossible to make changes that the society wanted because he was owned by the people who didn't want any change. [0] https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-r...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Aloha 10y ago
Arguably just like "Make America Great Again" Slogans without specifics are just that, slogans.
jordanb 10y ago
Obama had a lot of specifics during his campaign in 2008 and I think he really believed in some of them. And he accomplished some of them. For instance, he did pass a heavily watered down healthcare law, and a heavily watered down financial regulation law. He also implemented a way-too-small stimulus. He did promise to renegotiate NAFTA though, walked it back almost immediately and then gave us the TPP instead. During his first overseas trip to London he was asked if the Washington Consensus was dead. He dodged the question. I think he was fundamentally a reactionary in the areas that really matter, and in the areas where people really want hope and change. He appointed Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and they made sure nobody on Wall Street was ever held accountable. At one point he told Wall Street executives that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Well he's gone now, planning to follow Bill Clinton onto the lecture circuit no doubt. And the pitchforks have gotten sharper than ever because fundamentally, where it really counts, nothing has gotten better since 2008.
- rtpg 10y ago
  Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation. It's in the same court as "both parties are the same" memes from intellectual laziness. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has helped make sure that banks can't outright lie about their conflicts of interests. Various Dodd-Frank stuff has helped along that. Billion-dollar fines for 2008's behaviors have meant that banks are losing money. And as an end result, banks are taking the rules more seriously! Hiring "boring" CEOs to help reign in the craziness. Anyone paying attention can see that the financial industry has been preparing itself for a new normal of "not crazily dishonest" (Obviously Trump is changing that posture a bit). It's possible to believe that not enough was done, without saying they're the same. Now... pitchfork sharpness is more connected to impressions than fact. Maybe that's the impression of people. But it's not the reality. PS: who would you rather want in any regulatory body? someone who's worked in the industry before, and understands the issues at stake? Or someone who doesn't understand anything about the industry? Hiring regulators from Wall Street (to a lower paying job) isn't sign of "the power of the lobbies". It's like saying that hiring a former programmer to be a CTO is a conflict of interest. The objective isn't punishment, it's making sure that the financial industry serves its purpose to society properly.
gozur88 10y ago
Meh. There are only two ways to brand a campaign: "Change", and "Back to the Good Old Days". Obama's was just the penultimate successful iteration of the first. He had a chance to make changes in his first two years, and he did - the ACA was a pretty big change.
ricw 10y ago
Having read obamas book audacity of hope (highly recommended), I strongly disagree. I presume that what he describes in his book was what he was referring to as change: ending bi-partisanship in Washington and constructively making things better by bridging the gap between republicans and democrats. In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. Though potus 45 seems to be following his example in that regard..
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's been said that Obama was a better campaigner than a politician (not to say he was a bad politician), and I think that holds up decently well. Keep in mind the book you cite is partially a campaign/marketing piece. I mean the Democrats had control of government prior to 2010 and the ACA was still a compromise with lots of infighting between Democrats. Obama of course didn't help the divide by making pointed insults (clinging to their guns and religion). I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. He may have had the best intentions, but his difficulties were a little bit of obstructionism and a little bit of his own personality traits. edit: This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-president-obama-not-having-any-friends/378761/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief... http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhood/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhoo... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustra...
  - GuiA 10y ago
    The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming these cross party relationships is because he was white.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      Bill Clinton is incredibly personable; I don't think that has anything to do with race.
vacri 10y ago
Not an American, but sitting on the sidelines, it never seemed to me that hope & change were a 'choose your own adventure' slogan. It seemed more like 'let's bring positivity back into vogue' after a two-term presidency of terrorism, poorly-handled natural disasters, divisive rhetoric, security theatre, war that didn't work out, and more war that didn't work out.
ProxCoques 10y ago
I was working for a US company here in the UK when Obama was elected. What struck us (the UK employees) was how amazingly trusting the Americans were of the Obama "change" and "hope" line. There were people with Obama "hope" chocolate bars on their desks, wearing hats with "change" and all sorts. I asked one of them about this and to my surprise they gave me a long speech about how it was all going to be so different now in US politics. Here in the UK (well until Brexit happened anyway) I don't think anyone expects huge changes to happen through party politics at all.

by Jerry2 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Aloha 10y ago

Arguably just like "Make America Great Again" Slogans without specifics are just that, slogans.

jordanb 10y ago

Obama had a lot of specifics during his campaign in 2008 and I think he really believed in some of them. And he accomplished some of them. For instance, he did pass a heavily watered down healthcare law, and a heavily watered down financial regulation law. He also implemented a way-too-small stimulus. He did promise to renegotiate NAFTA though, walked it back almost immediately and then gave us the TPP instead. During his first overseas trip to London he was asked if the Washington Consensus was dead. He dodged the question. I think he was fundamentally a reactionary in the areas that really matter, and in the areas where people really want hope and change. He appointed Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and they made sure nobody on Wall Street was ever held accountable. At one point he told Wall Street executives that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Well he's gone now, planning to follow Bill Clinton onto the lecture circuit no doubt. And the pitchforks have gotten sharper than ever because fundamentally, where it really counts, nothing has gotten better since 2008.

rtpg 10y ago
Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation. It's in the same court as "both parties are the same" memes from intellectual laziness. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has helped make sure that banks can't outright lie about their conflicts of interests. Various Dodd-Frank stuff has helped along that. Billion-dollar fines for 2008's behaviors have meant that banks are losing money. And as an end result, banks are taking the rules more seriously! Hiring "boring" CEOs to help reign in the craziness. Anyone paying attention can see that the financial industry has been preparing itself for a new normal of "not crazily dishonest" (Obviously Trump is changing that posture a bit). It's possible to believe that not enough was done, without saying they're the same. Now... pitchfork sharpness is more connected to impressions than fact. Maybe that's the impression of people. But it's not the reality. PS: who would you rather want in any regulatory body? someone who's worked in the industry before, and understands the issues at stake? Or someone who doesn't understand anything about the industry? Hiring regulators from Wall Street (to a lower paying job) isn't sign of "the power of the lobbies". It's like saying that hiring a former programmer to be a CTO is a conflict of interest. The objective isn't punishment, it's making sure that the financial industry serves its purpose to society properly.

gozur88 10y ago

Meh. There are only two ways to brand a campaign: "Change", and "Back to the Good Old Days". Obama's was just the penultimate successful iteration of the first. He had a chance to make changes in his first two years, and he did - the ACA was a pretty big change.

ricw 10y ago

Having read obamas book audacity of hope (highly recommended), I strongly disagree. I presume that what he describes in his book was what he was referring to as change: ending bi-partisanship in Washington and constructively making things better by bridging the gap between republicans and democrats. In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. Though potus 45 seems to be following his example in that regard..

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's been said that Obama was a better campaigner than a politician (not to say he was a bad politician), and I think that holds up decently well. Keep in mind the book you cite is partially a campaign/marketing piece. I mean the Democrats had control of government prior to 2010 and the ACA was still a compromise with lots of infighting between Democrats. Obama of course didn't help the divide by making pointed insults (clinging to their guns and religion). I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. He may have had the best intentions, but his difficulties were a little bit of obstructionism and a little bit of his own personality traits. edit: This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-president-obama-not-having-any-friends/378761/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief... http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhood/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhoo... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustra...
- GuiA 10y ago
  The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming these cross party relationships is because he was white.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Bill Clinton is incredibly personable; I don't think that has anything to do with race.

vacri 10y ago

Not an American, but sitting on the sidelines, it never seemed to me that hope & change were a 'choose your own adventure' slogan. It seemed more like 'let's bring positivity back into vogue' after a two-term presidency of terrorism, poorly-handled natural disasters, divisive rhetoric, security theatre, war that didn't work out, and more war that didn't work out.

ProxCoques 10y ago

I was working for a US company here in the UK when Obama was elected. What struck us (the UK employees) was how amazingly trusting the Americans were of the Obama "change" and "hope" line. There were people with Obama "hope" chocolate bars on their desks, wearing hats with "change" and all sorts. I asked one of them about this and to my surprise they gave me a long speech about how it was all going to be so different now in US politics. Here in the UK (well until Brexit happened anyway) I don't think anyone expects huge changes to happen through party politics at all.