CBSN

Column: Obama Must Prove 'change' Is More Than A Campaign Slogan

This story was written by DJ Funkhouser, Indiana Daily Student

Strolling around campus right now leads me to believe that most Indiana University students are Obama supporters. I get it-- its hot to support Obama.

Dont believe me? Just wander into Urban Outfitters-- youre not going to see any graffiti shirts with McCain on them. And by now, just that one word --change --is enough to give people an idea of who is being talked about.

But Im curious, how did Obama get seemingly exclusive rights to this word, and why is that one word enough to believe in him?

He didnt always have it. Before him, another presidential candidate once used that for his slogan. Before Its the economy, stupid, Bill Clinton ran with For a change. And to quote Howard Zinn, Clinton left no legacy of bold innovation in domestic policy or departure from traditional nationalistic foreign policy.

So just because people says change, it aint enough for this cynic to believe them; they need to show me.

Now, unless youve been living in a cave for the past several weeks or youre enrolled in Chem117, youve probably heard of the financial crisis were in. So what are our two candidates solutions for change? McCain recently released an all the fundamentals are fine statement, which isnt a solution but a joke.

But what about Obama? Ive been waiting to see what kind of change is hiding in his rolled-up sleeves. Where are the new investment markets going to come from? How does he plan to slow down the number of foreclosures? Is Obama going to increase regulation of new financial institutions?

Nothing. Literally. Obama recently said hed rather not put out a specific plan for its solution right now. More than likely, he said this because he was afraid any proposed solution might bitehim in the ass and run the risk of losingpotential voters.

But are we supposed to wait until after we elect him to see what he proposes and whether his solutions are jokes, too? And if he doesnt come out with anything, I think its fairly obvious that its a bit contradictory to his whole change image.

Its a nasty trend for politicians to wait until after an election or only when an issue becomes the medias sole focus (like immigration was for a while, then health care, then gas prices) before they publicly take a stance or propose a possible solution. Let us investigate how the candidates would solve the problem from an officially released doctrine now, then judge their competency for office from that.

Only then can I be sure that real, lasting change will occur. Otherwise, I have to trust in the hollow promise of campaign slogans. And I cant hold politicians responsible to slogans when we cant even remember them.

Did you remember Clintons?