No ‘Stability’ in U.S. Presidential Campaign
'Change' — not 'stability' — is the buzzword. I learned this after studying CNN and CBS reports on the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
No matter how desperately I searched for 'stability,' my search efforts suffered a massive failure. I couldn’t find a single S-word in the campaign rhetoric of either Democrats or Republicans. All they talk about is change.
And change does not merely pervade the campaign rhetoric. It also characterizes the primaries dynamics.
Apparently the bovine stabilnist brand brought by U.S. spin doctors to one of Europe’s poorest countries has too few fetishists at home.
White House hopefuls shun the word ‘stability.’ Maybe it’s because their voters stick to a different diet?
"The numbers tell us this was a debate between change and experience, and change won," said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider.Sources:
"You came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents to stand up and say that we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come." (Obama)
"For most of this campaign, we were far behind," he said. "We always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out and you spoke up for change." (Obama)
Clinton, speaking with 96 percent of the vote in, portrayed herself as the candidate who could bring about the change the voters want.
Clinton had worked to convince Iowa caucus-goers she has the experience to enact change, while Edwards and Obama preached that she is too much of a Washington insider to bring change to the nation's capital.
Edwards, in a tight race for second, said Iowa's results show that "the status quo lost and change won."
"Now we move on ... to determine who is best suited to bring about the changes this country so desperately needs," he said.
Photo courtesy of AP