Elections now
The 2008 campaign: It's all about change

BY DAN PALAZZOLO
Professor of Political Science

Change. That word, more than any other, captures the 2008 campaign for the presidency. From the Democratic nomination contest to the party conventions and through the presidential debates, change has defined presidential politics. The concept of change has evolved during the campaign, but the tug-of-war over change will continue to election day.

Barack Obama’s defeat of heavily favored rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination process was a victory of change over experience. Obama vowed to “change our politics,” by overcoming traditional divisions across racial, gender, age and party lines. Building on his 2004 Democratic convention speech, Obama insisted that divisions between red states and blue states were exaggerated and that he sought to unify the country and put the “people’s interests” ahead of the “special interests.” After winning Iowa, where 95 percent of the population is white, Obama’s narrative became more convincing. Suddenly, change merged with hope, and chants of “Yes We Can” beckoned from crowds at Obama’s stump speeches and YouTube videos on the computers of Democrats, independents, and, as Obama would have it, even some Republicans. Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” trumped Hillary Clinton’s argument that she would be “ready to lead on day one.” In the process, Obama inspired millions of new voters, raised record amounts of cash in small donations and built a movement for “changing the way we do business in Washington.”

Yet angry Clinton supporters, voting data and exit poll results highlighted divisions within the Democratic Party. Obama defeated Clinton by just over 60,000 votes, or just about 1/10th of 1 percent of the 36,450,000 votes cast in Democratic contests from January to June. His coalition of blacks, 18–29 years, and higher-educated and higher income whites contrasted with Clinton support among older, less-educated, and lower income whites, particularly white women. Those divisions emerged in state after state, even though the candidates’ positions on the major issues were virtually indistinguishable.

In order to unite the party for the general election campaign, Obama adapted his change message. He chose Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, a long-time Washington insider, as his running mate and announced that his goal was to “make clear the differences between myself and John McCain.” His acceptance speech at the 2008 presidential convention was a mere shadow of his 2004 address. The main message was not so much about “changing our politics,” but changing the party in control of the government. Obama’s speech focused mainly on linking McCain to “failed policies” of Bush and laying out a traditional Democratic agenda. The fall campaign slogan too has been altered slightly; signs at rallies now say: “Change We Need.” This shift made perfectly good sense under the conditions: President George W. Bush’s approval ratings hover around 25 percent, among the lowest ratings ever recorded since the Gallup Poll began asking this survey question in the 1940s, and American sentiments have shifted in favor of the Democratic Party. Obama’s strategy has worked insofar as most Democrats are falling in line behind his candidacy.

Obama’s message of change was so convincing that his Republican opponent, John McCain, joined the bandwagon. Realizing that he could not win by running a campaign consisting of ads comparing Obama to Hollywood stars and arguing that he was “not ready to lead,” McCain turned to a message centered on government reform. Yet, McCain also faced problems within his party. He emerged as the Republican nominee from a fractured field of candidates largely as a result of his appeal among independents who voted in Republican primaries. McCain tried unsuccessfully for several months to excite an underwhelmed base of Republican voters before the GOP convention. Whereas the Democrats were energized but not unified prior to their convention, the Republicans were unified but not energized.

With the fundamental forces running against his party—a weak economy and an unpopular president—McCain had to gamble. He appointed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin—a popular, albeit relatively unknown, conservative with a record of government reform—as his running mate. In an effort to separate himself from President Bush and brandish his maverick reputation, McCain chastised and challenged his own party: “We were elected to change Washington, but Washington changed us.” His campaign was reignited and huge crowds gathered, if only to get a glimpse of his running mate.

Though McCain surged temporarily in tracking polls, recent events have conspired to reinforce Obama’s message of change from Republican to Democratic leadership. So long as the campaign is conducted amidst turmoil in the financial markets, and McCain does not differentiate himself from Bush, Obama has an advantage. In times of economic crisis, voters are inclined to punish the incumbent party. Since more voters blame the crisis on a Republican president and the excesses of market capitalism, it is no wonder that Obama’s version of change seems to be more appealing as the campaign enters the final stretch. The last remaining question is for the voters to decide which version of change is right for the times.