If Candidates were a brand

<p>If candidates were a brand this is how they will rate</p>

<p>Clinton:
Slogan: The Strength and Experience to Bring Real Change
Theme: I have been there
Values: Competence; experience; professionalism
Brand: Microsoft, Martha Stewart Living</p>

<p>McCain:
Slogan: Straight Talk Express
Slogan: I will Go there
Values: Resilience; candor; courage
Brand: Hummer, Winston</p>

<p>Obama:
Slogan: Change We Can Believe In
Theme: I’ll take you there
Values: Inspiration; inclusion; iconoclasm
Brand: Nike, Apple</p>

<p>Huckbee:
Slogan: Faith. Family. Freedom
Theme: Let’s go back
Values: Earthiness; populism; humility
Brand: Applebees</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/03/candidates_branding/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/03/candidates_branding/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>McCain: This is your father’s Oldsmobile.</p>

<p>Funny. I thought Rev. Huckbee’s was cute too.</p>

<p>I’ll try to stay with cars to limit the scope.</p>

<p>Hillary - Volvo. Will accomplish things, very boring, has a mixed bag history, aimed towards women.</p>

<p>Obama - Infiniti - Vision, promises, intensity, new. Strong name value, but ‘foreign’, and questions remain.</p>

<p>McCain - Chevy - Good old American who will tell you the way things are, some skeletons in the past.</p>

<p>Huckabee - Scion - Some interesting things going on, and probably some good stuff to take away, but only a nut could actually like these (Bring the Constitution in line with the Bible!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?!!?!?!)</p>

<p>I don’t know. I see it more like the output of a miniture poodle (tootsie role size); great dane (pinched loaf) and a very sick mutt (splat). They may all look different, but if you get your nose close enough, you realize that they all smell the same.</p>

<p>This election is so discouraging. I could understand every election in the last 32 years. Whether it was Carter against Ford or Regan; Regan against carter or Mondale; Bush against Dukakis or Clinton; Clinton against Bush or Dole; and even Bush jr. against Gore or Kerry. There are so many things that I can see as to why people would vote for any of the names I mentioned. Hell; I can even see why people may have voted for some of the primary candidates who didn’t make it to the general election. But for the life of me, I can’t see any significant reason why anyone should vote for any of the 3 people still standing. Maby the Mayan calandar is correct and the world ends in 2012. </p>

<p>I’ve voted in every election I’ve been old enough to vote in. I have a lot of respect for those on both sides; plus the independents; to run for office. I have just as much respect in that area for Carter as I do Regan as I do Clinton and Bush. But for the life of me I can’t understand our current choices.</p>

<p>Obama: “Change we can believe in”. This guy is nothing but all talk. He fires everyone up so much and yet he has no idea how to make any of this “Change” happen. I have listened directly to so many of his speeches and interviews. He hasn’t given a direct explanation on how he is going to do anything. People think they want change so badly, they don’t care if the next person can do anything or even make it worse. As long as it’s change, he has lived up to his word. What a crock. Obama is office is dangerous.</p>

<p>Clinton: Oh yea, she’s a winner. She’s trying to play the same Clinton hardball that Bill played. Unfortunately; not only does she not believe what she’s telling everyone. She doesn’t even know how to play the game. She is trying so hard to show how tough she is; that she can be commander in chief; and be a powerful leader; that she is looking like a desperate person who is starting to realize that the voters see right through her. Sorry lady; you aren’t a Maggy Thatcher or Golda. You are not a leader. You might be an acceptable senator where all you do is represent, but you suck as a leader. The people know.</p>

<p>McCain: Trying to please everyone. Another senator who does well representing, but wouldn’t know how to lead a troop of boy scouts if he didn’t have assistants to help him. Because there is no one else on the republican side, he has become very complacent. He’s made deals with Huckabee. That’s a given and a fact. He’s probably made a deal with him to stay in the primary race. See; if Huckabee had dropped out last month, then no one would be running against McCain. Therefor there wouldn’t be any news to report. Therefor no one would be following or monitoring McCain. Therefor there would have been up to 4 months of DAY TO DAY DEMOCRAT COVERAGE on Obama or Clinton. By the time of the general election, everyone would have forgotten who was even the Republican nominee. It wouldn’t have mattered if Clinton or Obama would have won. Either would beat McCain because of 4 extra months of free advertising. Keeping Huckabee in the race gives McCain at least some daily press coverage. He’s still a loser.</p>

<p>So, who do I vote for? Do I vote for some dreamer kid who has no idea how to do anything; hasn’t done anything; doesn’t provide any hint or promise of being able to do anything??? Do I vote for someone who is trying so hard to show how tough she is; yet play the sympathy female card when it suits her; and is hated by half the people (private and government) and not respected by the other half??? Or, do i vote for the guy who’s temper is worse than mine; has no idea how economics work; and shouldn’t even be the leader.</p>

<p>Unfortunately; McCain seems the most hopeful. With him, there is a chance. He has made more deals with Democrats than Obama and Clinton have done combined. The democrats in the house and senate probably respect him more that the other two. With McCain; MAYBE congress can actually work together and get something accomplished. McCain is still very pro military. Agree or disagree with our military and the Iraq and middle east situation; that isn’t important. What is, is maintaining what little respect we still have of our allies and the trust of the middle eastern people that we are currently helping. (Yes, there is a lot of good happening. Even if there is bad.) If we pull all the troops out; like under Clinton or Obama; we will have no trust or credibility among anyone. Everyone will know that our word means nothing. Those we are helping have been given our word that we won’t desert them. They in fact do need us and we can’t just pack up and leave in 90-180 days like Clinton and Obama want. No, we don’t need to be there 100 years. No, we don’t need to make a firm date. (Bad guys will just wait it out.) The fact is, we need someone still very pro military. He can surround himself with enough good people in the JCS, Sec of Defense, and with the congress working together to finish accomplishing the mission. And at least with McCain, we would have someone with some experience in getting things done.</p>

<p>Again; I think all three stink. They stink the same. Tootsie roll; loaf; and splat. It all smells the same. I am an optimist, but I don’t believe in fairytales. That is all Obama can promise. Hillary has no respect; and wouldn’t get anything accomplished. At least McCain has kissed enough Democrats that there’s a chance. Oh well; I hope the Mayans aren’t right.</p>

<p>You proclaim past options superior to those today. That is the crock.</p>

<p>Mondale, Perot, Dole, Dukakis, Bush, Carter, and on and on. Horrid candidates. Nixon should have been completely and utterly unelectable.</p>

<p>Obama has very extensive definitions as to what exactly he is offering, if you actually listened to the substance of his speeches, or did a mild amount of research you would know this.</p>

<p>Hillary is trying to recreate the only president who left more popular than he came in. The only difference is that he pandered even more.</p>

<p>McCain did command, and to claim he cannot is downright silly.</p>

<p>An inspirational youthful speaker, a person who has spent years in the white house, but largely as a figurehead, and a war hero.</p>

<p>That could be Kennedy, Lincoln, or William Jennings Bryan. That could be any of the vice presidents that have so gallantly sought office(Gore, Bush 1, Adams, and on and on). That could be any one(Washington, both Harrisons, JFK, Truman, Eisenhower, and on and on). Really.</p>

<p>If you say so. </p>

<p>I specifically said I could understand why some people voted and/or supported past candidates. I didn’t say I thought they were better or not. Just that I could understand the support they got.</p>

<p>I still don’t believe that Obama has any substance whatsoever. it’s all talk. Clinton is trying to hard and doesn’t have the respect needed. McCain is just trying to please everyone with his rhetoric. Just like he does on capital hill all the time. He tells 2 different people 2 different things to get their support.</p>

<p>So, believe what you want. You can have your opinion just like I can have mine. McCain gets my vote by default. If you think Obama has substance, fine., He says a lot of great things. I’m just not convinced he can do any of it. He hasn’t done anything comparable in the past to feel confident about. In that respect, I would take Hillary over him. I have confidence she can do some of the things she says.</p>

<p>Obama - Colorful Fruit Loops cereal box with rainbows on the cover.</p>

<p>Clinton - Store-brand bagged cereal with the same Fruit Loops inside (bigger bags for the same price though)</p>

<p>McCain - Cheerios</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I found that hilarious :D</p>

<p>Christcorp, Clinton and Obama say they’ll do almost exactly identical things—their platforms are virtually identical. In that respect, they’re both just talk. Clinton has been no more detailed or specific about how she’ll implement her grand designs than Obama, but somehow, she has managed to effectively campaign on the myth that he “just gives a good speech”.</p>

<p>If they were cereal</p>

<p>Obama: Cocoa Puffs…all chocolatey and look so great…everybody is cucko for Cocoa Puffs…until they take a bite and realize they are just filled with a bunch of air…</p>

<p>Clinton: Bran…eat enough of her bran and you will be full of it too…</p>

<p>McCain: Fruit Loops…and he is Fruit Loops…</p>

<p>Poet; you are correct that they both say almost the same thing. But from Clinton’s time in the senate and her pre-DC time; I just believe that she could actually get some things done. She has some things to back up her talk. Obama is nothing but talk. I haven’t seen and don’t know of anything in his resume that makes me believe he can accomplish anything.</p>

<p>Remember, I am not saying I am thrilled with either of the two of them. And McCain isn’t that far ahead of them either. Just enough and only on 2 topics. His stance with the military and the fact that he does do so much a$$ kissing, he actually is somewhat effective in getting the dems and reps to work together. But again, I’m not thrilled or passionate about any of the 3.</p>

<p>6 years elected service vs. 10(that’s Barack BTW). Wow. 6 in the senate vs. 2.</p>

<p>He has proposed and passed hundreds upon hundreds of bills over his 10 year career, and has been drastically more productive in his 2 short years than most full term senators.</p>

<p>[Barack</a> Obama - Congresspedia](<a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama]Barack”>Barack Obama - SourceWatch)
If you want to see some of his work.
Also: [Barack</a> Obama record and legislation t… - ! * POLITICS * ! - tribe.net](<a href=“http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/50517998-46bd-41d1-9fdf-2b41f58a829e]Barack”>http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/50517998-46bd-41d1-9fdf-2b41f58a829e)</p>

<p>For Hillary:
[Hillary</a> Rodham Clinton - Congresspedia](<a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton]Hillary”>Hillary Rodham Clinton - SourceWatch)</p>

<p>For McCain:
[John</a> McCain - Congresspedia](<a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_McCain]John”>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_McCain)</p>

<p>collegemom16 - very good! Love the cereal analogies! They were spot on (except I don’t think McCain is a fruit loop - I think he’s “Total”!).</p>

<p>And as far as “vehicles” go, McCain is definitely a JEEP - tested, dependable, battle-ready; not too pretty, but will get you there over the rough spots.</p>

<p>Not sure about the other candidates - Hillary would be something that is all show & no go - maybe a Jaguar (an old one w/ lots of issues!). </p>

<p>Obama is something that looks good on the outside but is really a dog. Maybe something like a Hummer - looks good & full of promise but is really impractical & expensive to operate! (And after you bought it, you’d say, “What the heck was I thinking?”).</p>

<p>Good thread!
Cheers to all!
~BZ</p>

<p>Operating Systems:
Obama: Mac OS. “Hip, popular with the younger crowd, user-friendly. Not for everyone, though.”
Clinton: Windows Vista OS. “Change you can experience, but do you really want to experience it? Also, full of bugs at beta stages.”
McCain: Windows XP. The tried and true. Still plenty of errors and bugs in the OS, but maybe more reliable than Vista?
Huckabee: Windows 98. Yeah, sure, it works. But do we really want to go back to it?</p>

<p>bz2010, as the wife of a Jeep owner, I must courteously disagree. Jeeps are way cooler than McCain could ever hope for…unless you’re talking about one of those really old Army jeeps, or the ancient post office jeeps that were long ago retired? THAT I could see. I do like the slogan: McCain IS your father’s Oldsmobile!!!</p>

<p>tlaktan - like those OS camparisons!</p>

<p>Ok - these aren’t “brands”, but how about entrees?
Obama - Hot Dog. Almost all filler. Not really sure what you’re getting!</p>

<p>Hillary - Meat Loaf. Lots of filler. The flavor can be greatly altered according to the tastes of the consumer.</p>

<p>McCain - Steak. Maybe a little bit tough, but you know you’re getting something good for you!</p>

<p>Huckabee - Maybe something your mom made that you didn’t like that much (like liver!).</p>

<p>astrophysicsmom - yeah, I was thinking CJ model. We actually used to have a vintage WWII Navy Jeep (MB). That was a lot of fun - and nowhere it couldn’t go!<br>
But don’t underestimate McCain’s “cool factor”. Wish his personality came across on T.V. like it does in person. (And there isn’t anything “cooler” than a Navy Pilot!).</p>

<p>Obama-might play the race card
Hillary-plays the woman card
McCain-plays the “I was tortured in Vietnam and that makes me an expert in the field” card
Huckabee-plays the religion card</p>

<p>I don’t like any of them.</p>

<p>futurenyu - I don’t think McCain plays that POW card! That is a time he would just as soon forget! He DOES play the “I’ve been around long enough to have the knowledge, experience and judgement to do a good job as POTUS” card. That’s true - and trumps all others!</p>

<p>I see being around in DC long enough as a negative. That city corrupts even those with the strongest integrity.</p>

<p>Politics in general kind of corrupts. Most senators are kind of, like, spineless.</p>

<p>Boy are you cynical!</p>