Back during the Democratic primary, all we heard about was change and experience.
The two finalists selected these generic tags as surrogates, since there were no essential ideological differences between them, and since both were freshmen Senators with equally thin resumes.
It was Change (embodied by a doctrinaire Leftist who wouldn’t alter a single plank of the Democratic platform) vs. Experience (represented by a carpet-bagging one-term legislator whose most vivid telling of her experience involved dodging runway sniper fire — otherwise known as a typical airport greeting ceremony).
Change spat upon the very notion of experience and said it was a corrupting agent, while Experience belittled change as being insufficiently capable of bringing about itself.
Experience started out on the defensive, saying it was she who had the requisite experience to bring about change. Sensing weakness, Change countered that change wouldn’t come from Washington, that in fact we were the ones we’ve been waiting for. Then with her back up against the wall and facing impossible odds, Experience decided to attack Change head-on, drawing on her own assumed strengths and questioning whether Change was prepared to take phone calls at 3 a.m. But Change had reserved a knock-out blow, explaining that instinctive judgment, not experience, was the real prerequisite for change.
This back and forth was not lost on the Republican candidates, who jumped at the opportunity to ride the change bandwagon, each of them claiming to be the true representative of change, while simultaneously chiding the triteness of the term’s usage. America’s Mayor said his proven conservative leadership would really change Washington, the Mormon Governor replaced his full-movement conservative rhetoric with slogans hinging on populist change and political reform, and the Governor from Hope staked a claim on change by logical extension.
But it was the Maverick — a term already synonymous with change — who was endorsed by Experience as its Republican standard-bearer. The Senator from Arizona essentially came to represent both terms, brilliantly alternating between his dual reservoirs of change and experience, drawing from one or the other, depending on the given audience or circumstances, and thus surging ahead of the Republican field.
Upon assuming the official status as the Democratic nominee, Change pinned the defeated Experience label on the Republican winner and tied him to the current administration — casting him as the continuation of the last eight years and saying he could thus not represent change. So the Maverick’s age became a larger issue, as did his recent voting record.
The Maverick hit back with the now-familiar Experience jab, knocking Change as a vapid celebrity and pounding him with questions about his readiness to lead the country.
Bloodied and dazzled by the onslaught, Change undercut himself when it came time to pick a running-mate. Change defensively selected an old Washington insider who could help solve his experience problem, even though he too had once questioned Change’s experience.
With the title in sight, the Maverick took a chance on delivering a knock-out punch, choosing a running-mate who would reinforce the change side of his combination attack.
Change fell into the trap, attacking the Maverick’s running mate for her lack of experience, thus abandoning his safety zone and entering unfriendly territory. You can call it bad judgment, but that’s just what happens when you have absolutely zero experience.
UPDATE: Popfly sends in this slightly different take:
Experience Vs. Change
This is a work of art.