What we mean by "change"
I'm going to do something I've never even considered doing in all the years I've been blogging: I'm going to make a political statement. I've never once been inspired to write anything even remotely political which, in retrospect, is obviously the result of almost never being even remotely politically inspired. But after so many years of near apathy, things are changing.
First of all, regardless of your political views, I think we can all agree that we're ready for something new. That's not really the question. The real question is what kind of change we want, and who can bring it about.
Clinton's position is that 35 solid years of being a lawyer, a governor's wife, the first lady, and a senator, qualifies her to make the kinds of changes disillusioned American citizens so badly want. 35 years of operating in and around Washington, fund raising, and building one of the most powerful political machines I've ever seen is, according to Clinton, the best way to rebuild, redefine, and fundamentally recast American politics. Think about that for a second. Clinton's entire platform is essentially an oxymoron. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and indeed I believe that electing Hillary Clinton, and expecting fundamental changes in American politics, is nothing short of insane.
Recently, while trying to figure out why I've been so disillusioned with politics for most of my life (with only a few small glimmers of hope which where violently stamped out), something extraordinary occurred to me. The first George Bush was elected president in 1989 followed by Bill Clinton for eight straight years. After Bill Clinton, George W. Bush was elected the next two terms. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected for the next two terms for a total of eight years, that would mean that for 28 years straight, only two families will have occupied the White House, and for 16 of those years, it will have been the same two people (Bill and Hillary). I don't know about you, but this doesn't exactly scream fundamental change to me. In fact, it barely even sounds constitutional.
Something else that occurred to me recently is the fact that Al Gore hasn't endorsed anyone yet. I've been waiting for another chance to vote for Gore for almost eight years now, but as it became more and more evident that Gore is probably as disillusioned with politics as the rest of us, I started wondering who he would endorse. Then I suddenly realized that by not endorsing Clinton, he has clearly endorsed Barack Obama. The Clintons and Gore obviously have very strong ties -- strong enough, I imagine, that it would be a little too brazen for Gore to publicly endorse Obama. However, the fact that he has not endorsed Clinton is, in my mind, as good as endorsing her opponent.
The final point I want to make is that the Democrats need to think ahead when they decide who will go up against John McCain. Rather than looking at a snapshot of data at the moment they need to make their decision, they would do far better to project and trace the effectiveness of both Clinton's and Obama's campaigns all the way out to November. Think about where Obama's campaign was a month ago, think about where it is today, and use that data to calculate where it will be in November. Now plot Clinton's and McCain's campaigns on the same chart. That steady, positive, exponential curve of Obama's line is what we mean when we talk about change.
