Will we see “Hope & Change” in 2012? It’ll probably be more like “Slash & Burn”

During the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama brought us a campaign of “Hope & Change.” However, the 2012 incarnation of President Obama’s reelection campaign is more likely to have a slogan more akin to “Slash & Burn,” if this report by Ben Smith & Jonathan Martin is to be believed.

According to the report by Smith & Martin the president’s reelection campaign advisers have turned the focus of their negative attacks on Republican “frontrunner” Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor with the ever-shifting set of political beliefs, viewing Romney as the likely Republican presidential nominee.

What’s more, the report goes on to note that President Obama’s reelection team has studied the 2004 reelection campaign of George W. Bush to come up with some ideas on how a vulnerable incumbent president can beat back a strong challenge.

In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

Yeah, I think it’s safe to say that we won’t see much “Hope & Change” in 2012, but we’ll see an awful lot of “Slash & Burn.”


Related Articles

1 thought on “Will we see “Hope & Change” in 2012? It’ll probably be more like “Slash & Burn”

  1. I shudder because of the dumbness of it – the lack of knowing Who You Are, and what your own strengths are. Bush and his team were a specific phenomenon. You can’t “study his playbook” for any other purpose than just understanding Bush and what happened back then.
    I can’t “become” a bouncy blonde popular Homecoming Queen Cheerleader simply by studying how one of those beasts does things. I’ll just decrease my own value and effectiveness as a human being if I try. I will become even more repulsive to others via my lack of realness. This approach can only come from a MASSIVE center of marshmallow-y weakness. What a lame example to his early Teen daughters.

    Democrats are steadfast in their refusal to learn the essence of the Republican and Tea Party successes, and that is, they go with their guts and it does really come from within. EVEN when the “thinkers” behind it all are shadowy billionaires and creepy foundations , they get people who really believe as spokes-idiots. That inner core of really BEING something is what draws people and holds them as supporters when you do lame irrational stuff. i.e. Today another blogger on the list is all gleeful that Kim Simac’s spellchecker screwed up and she didn’t catch it. Care to place a bet as to what the actual astronomically high levels of NOT CARING her supporters will reach? or even Independent people ? Everyone’s spellcheckers screw up. That was not her “I have dabbled into Witchcraft” moment. Similarly Sarah Palin looks stupid daily. Her supporters don’t care because it is the essence of Sarah that they love. I don’t really think her supporters are tiring of her, I think the pundits are. So just like we were told how HUGE the Tea party was when it wasn’t (because the pundits thought that was fun), we’re now being told that No One Likes Sarah anymore. People just play out in Punditland. (btw if I see John Nichols bloviating like he’s Mr. Wisconsin one more time I’m gonna scream. Three shows in a row or some crap last night, call another guy please. Just once. Get his name off that MSNBC bathroom wall)

    WHAT a loser. (back to Barack now)
    To a.)campaign specifically in opposition to one other man and then
    b.) campaign to re-elect by emulating that same man.
    Which is what Obama did before. “Change” is not an independent stand-alone concept, it depends on Bush. In a way he was not “his own man” even back then. His identity was 100% dependent upon Bush. Obama was the anti-Bush. That’s kinda odd right there but given the times we were in, it worked.
    He was elected as The Not Bush
    Now, he wants to study/become what he built his empire on Not Being.
    “I used to be for myself until I was against myself”
    Or something.

    Democrats are idiots. People tell them over and over point blank what they want. And they choose to listen instead to high-priced strategists who lead them to mediocrity or flaming (or whining) defeat most of the time.
    Heeey Barack, if people wanted Bush they would not have voted for your CHANGE bullshit. If we want Bush back we’ll take the original thank you. Bush was and always will be a better Bush than you can ever dream of emulating. How dumb can you be. (I’m sure I’ll have plenty of time to see the answer to that question between now and Nov. 2012)

    Final Thought: The front-runner and person that Barack Obama is campaigning against in thie election is not Mitt Romney. Obama is campaigning against the ghost of his former self. The opponent he can not defeat is his own Past Self. The more he runs from that, the harder it will chase him. He may be eligible for AARP but he has apparently learned little from his years on Earth. He’s still got to learn important High School/Young Adult lessons. Gawd.

Comments are closed.