I agree with Josh Marshall's analysis that the Obama campaign needs to do more to start defining the debate. I think I have an idea that is simple, funny, and brands the McCain-Palin ticket. "What is it?" you might ask. The answer below the fold...
Ever since he selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate, John McCain has completely shifted his argument from "the experience to lead" to "I'm for change too!" For us on the left, this new strategy sounds completely laughable, but there is reason to believe that enough people might fall for it to tip things the wrong way. What we need is a short, simple way to encapsulate the McCain's attempt at re-branding. WE need to be the ones to control the brand, thus control the debate. This happened a little bit right before the Democratic Convention with the houses gaffe, but that has all but disappeared from the campaign's rhetoric. That's sad because it was a good way for the Obama campaign to define McCain, and its major strength was that it both showed McCain as out of touch economically and unable to manage his own business, much less the country. It was quick and funny.
So...here's my suggestion. McCain's new-found reform is "change-lite." That's right, call McCain's campaign strategy change-lite. I think this will have a significant advantage in a couple ways. 1) Obama has already pointed out that McCain is claiming change but agrees with Bush 90% of the time. "Change-lite" dovetails nicely with Obama's argument that McCain is following in Obama's footsteps and emphasizes that McCain isn't as much change as Obama is. So what little that McCain is actually trying to change is nothing compared to what Obama will change. 2) McCain has a very limited definition of "change." For McCain, the change buzzword is "reform," and the only example he cites of change is pork barrel spending. It fits into his campaign speeches and stories of earmarks to test the DNA of bears in Montana, but that is all the change he provides. He has nothing on the economy, education, health care, taxes, or energy that is really a significant change from George Bush. He only has a few symbolic changes. It's like Diet Coke is to Coke. They're both sodas, and they both have a similar taste. The only real difference is the sweetener that is used. John McCain is the imitator, and Barack Obama is the originator of change. Add the "change-lite" label/brand to the Obama campaign's already existing narrative that McCain-Palin aren't the mavericks they claim to be, and I think we might have a good hook that is easy to remember and can stick with the electorate.
At least that's my opinion. What do you think? And, if this has any merit, how can we best insert it into the national dialogue?