I think so, for each of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, albeit for different reasons. From his 2004 presidential race through at least 2006, Edwards’ highest-level messaging talked about “Two Americas” (bad – a problem that needs solving) versus “One America” (good – a goal that should be accomplished). But “change” has long been a top secondary message for Edwards. As far back as February, 2006, Edwards’ main slogan was “We want to change America and together we will.”

And so Edwards is now engaging in a classic marketing technique, seen in areas as diverse as politics and information technology. He’s saying “You know that ‘change’ my rival is getting so much attention for? I’ve offered that too, all along.” And because he’s laid the groundwork, he can do that credibly.

Saying “Edwards is like Obama” does create a need to show how “Edwards is like Obama, but better.” But there’s little downside there; to succeed, Edwards had to show how he was better than Obama in any case. Presumably, Edwards thinks the “better” will come from his policy focus or, in some cases, his persona (Southern, a little older, drug-free, etc.).

What Clinton is doing, by way of contrast, is saying “You know that ‘change’ my rival is getting so much attention for? I’ve all along offered a version of ‘change’ that’s actually better than his.” A classic sign of this technique is when somebody literally disputes the definition of a marketing term, as Clinton did in Saturday’s New Hampshire debate, and is doing ever more. This isn’t like Edwards’ strategy of saying “I’m offering the same thing that you like about him; decide among us on other grounds.” Rather, Clinton is saying “I’m offering something different than he is, and it’s actually more likely to do what you want than his version is.” Clinton is asserting that her experienced nuts-and-bolts approach to getting things done will actually produce concrete change results – and that’s what voters should focus on – while she portrays Obama as a great-talking idealist who hasn’t actually accomplished very much tangible, and also may not do so in the future.

Will this wholly blunt Obama’s message of change? Of course not. It won’t even come close to siphoning off most Obama supporters. But will it help Clinton supporters stay with her, rather than defecting to rival candidates whose main selling point is the promise of “change”? Absolutely.

So co-opting Obama’s change message is a good strategy for Clinton just as it is for Edwards, albeit in different ways and for different reasons.

Previous posts in this series:

• Part 1:  Different approaches to marketing “change”
• Part 2:  Competing definitions of “change”
• Part 3:  Implicit messaging in support of “change” positioning

Again, Obama leads the way. He at least creates the appearance of using a variety of modern internet technologies to communicate with his supporters, and ties this into a pledge to use technology to make government more transparent and responsive to its citizens. The photo section of BarackObama.com focuses on showing him with a broad range of “ordinary” people. He’s probably the only candidate from either party whose most visible endorser is someone other than a white male. He has a young (under 50), Tiger Woodsian post-racial appeal. And he’s at least partially successful in differentiating himself from politics-as-usual via a “high road” of not very negative campaigning.

When it comes to positive implicit messaging in the area of change, John Edwards focuses mainly on “walking the walk” of his anti-corporate, poverty-fighting populism. He declines lobbyist and PAC money. He launched his campaign in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward. He works visibly on poverty-related issues. Once again, his marketing is really about benefiting the poorer classes, and “change” is mainly a means of getting to those objectives.

Of the three leading Democratic candidates, Clinton does the least to market “change.” Her official online biography indeed emphasizes concrete accomplishment, and advocacy for change. But her website could – and should – go further. For example, some kind of chart or graph consolidating her accomplishments could convey the message much more convincingly.

Obviously, Clinton is trying hard to avoid the dread “liberal” label. Even so, the Clinton campaign could do a better job of combining messages of “change” and “prudent moderation.” Most of the Obama tactics mentioned above could and should have been copied; some would even work at this late date. And while there’s no time for this now, last year would have been a great time to sponsor some visible policy conferences, brimming with practical ideas about how to effect change. That would have been a great way to – well, to build a bridge to 21^st Century politics, but to do so in a classic Clinton policy wonkish style.

Clinton also gives a consistent messaging contradicting the change story by identifying herself with the Bill Clinton Administration. That is, after all, in the past. And it has been demonized by right- and left-wing commentators alike. Unless Hillary Clinton succeeds in establishing the Bill Clinton legacy as one of change rather than one of non-change, little else she tries in marketing the “change” concept is likely to succeed.

Perhaps most important, Hillary Clinton has a “change” trump card she is not playing at all well: Clinton is a woman, which automatically makes her one of the most unusual and differentiated front-running candidates in the history of American politics. As I’ll discuss in an upcoming post, Clinton is squandering that advantage, and missing a major opportunity to position herself as a change agent in the area of women’s rights.

When I visited BarackObama.com on Sunday, the first three slogans I saw were

• “Change we can believe in” (his overall campaign tagline)

• “New Hampshire – Our time for change has come”

• “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

And it continues from there. Obama has been active in various return-the-government-to-the-people kinds of issues – campaign finance reform, a search engine of government information (which he presented on the debate as a big deal), and so on. His “Let’s be united, not divided” message is couched in terms of change. His recent book title “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” is full of words with connotations of change. He calls himself a “progressive.” He even compares himself to Martin Luther King. And his campaign hardly shies away from the suggestion that Obama’s very skin color would, if he were elected, represent dramatic change.

John Edwards’ message is similar, but at its core he’s pushing a narrower, classically populist concept of “change.” While Edwards says he and Obama offer a joint message of change, what he’s talking about can be pretty well encapsulated in three simple concepts:

• “Defeat greedy and irresponsible corporations” (which unites his trial lawyer successes with his political life)

• “Kick the bums out” (which he extends from Republicans and lobbyists to include the Clintons)

• “End the Iraq war.”

If all these things happen, the working class and poor will (Edwards implies or says) benefit. A classic example of this approach is one of the oldest and most elaborate ones I found on a web search for Edwards’ “change” messaging, namely a “Change Wal-Mart, Change America” tour in 2006.

Hillary Clinton takes a very different approach to “change.” She certainly wants to change which party occupies the White House, along with many things about US public policy. But as she couches it, change happens one successful step at a time, and she takes credit for a number of such steps over her 35 year career (including the ones that happened on her husband’s watch as governor and President). While John Edwards says what’s most important is a passionate commitment to change, Clinton wants to focus voters’ attention on the actual process of making change happen, through legislation, implementation and — when necessary – compromise. And in many ways, she would be content with change that starts by bringing the United States back to the conditions it enjoyed during the Bill Clinton Administration – healthy economy, balanced budget, relative peace, and all the rest.

1. Change from the Bush Administration is paramount.

2. Change has something to do with helping the poor, the working class, and children.

3. Change in Iraq policy – specifically, bringing US troops home from Iraq – is mandatory.

4. Change in health care insurance is important.

No surprises so far – the first three are obvious Democratic positions, and the fourth has been a major Democratic theme since early in the Bill Clinton Administration.

But the debate also highlighted considerable disagreement and competition to further define what “change” entails. At least three major categories of change were brought up, each with a number of subpoints:

• Change in who’s in charge — e.g., somebody competent, a woman, or the son of a poorly educated, undeniably working-class mill worker.

• Change in who has influence — e.g., less influence for corporations, their lobbyists, or the rich, and more influence for “the people.”

• Change in outcomes — e.g., troops home from Iraq, carbon emissions cut, or more people with health insurance.

And that’s just one night’s haul, leaving out other major “change” themes in this campaign. Barack Obama in particular offers a multi-faceted message of change.