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.

Comments

[j]

This election's choices are the worst I have ever seen. The voting public is left with

- the token black guy w/ grandiose rhetoric but no real experience. aka "the feel good about yourself because you did the right thing by voting for a minority" candidate.
- the token woman w/ a jaded past and the shadow of her husband ever looming. Another "pat yourself on the back for voting for a woman" candidate.
- another on-the-face republican candidate w/ no real conservative agenda. A sheep in wolves clothing. aka. Chuckles
- a very loony hand-of-god conservative who seems very much like our current "god's man" president. aka. "The second coming of George Dubbya Bush" candidate.

This country has no hope. No matter who wins, we all lose. Rome was also a mighty empire and it eventually fell. I really feel sick when looking back in history to those men who created and drafted this country. And now look at it. They must be turning in their graves.

[Steve McDonald]

Christian, I completely agree with your comment about not simply wanting change, but what kind of change, and asking the question "who can bring that change about?"

Now, while I'm probably not going to win any awards with amazing revelations on candidates, I think the "change" we all want is reform to the political process and not the type of politicians that seem to saturate the spectrum.

Case and point in my opinion is (sadly) Mr. Obama. If you look at his record, he is nearly a political carbon copy of Hilary when it comes to voting and voted straight down the line with his political party so far in his young career. To me, that isn't a "leader", that is a "follower." I am worried that he won't amount to much more than a puppet president run by this current Democratic Party.

I think I am almost litterally ill over this political pandering to the heart-strings with the whole "change" talk-crap, when ALL OF THESE FOLKS clearly are not rocking any boats or going against the stream in a fight for change.

Voting for them feels like I am validating their political posturing and I am about fed up with all of it.

At this point I would trade in all of the candidates for one that actually has a real reputation for change. But the truth is, whether you are an old pseudo-conservative veteran, a junior senator with no experience, or an experienced politicians-wife running with the same story for 20 years, the only thing that is changing is the staff who is writing their speaches!

The truth is that conservatives come out to vote and loud young democrates do not. So while there is a battle for canadacy in the BLUE party, the RED party seems non-divided behind McCain. My money is on McCain sitting in the Whitehouse, whether people like that or not. I think that the "change" talk is going to kill the dems chances, because it really feels like empty posturing.

[Christian Cantrell]

To be honest, Steve, I don't think I disagree with anything you wrote. I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not really expecting it.

Christian