The winds of change are blowing. Unfortunately, it is a bunch of hot air (maybe it's Global Warming). The democratic presidential hopefuls are each vying to be the "candidate of change" for the 2008 elections. No two are more adamant about their change proposition than Clinton and Obama. Perhaps the extra venom in this sparring match is because they are the front-runners, or quite possibly they have nothing better to offer.
Nonetheless, I have to wonder how two senators in a congress that has accomplished no worthy change since the Democratic party took control consider themselves the agents of change? What has changed under their leadership? They are active players in our nation's political system, but they have no substantiative examples of the change they created. So what is different about these candidates? Well...one is a minority and one is a woman. That's fine and I have no problem with their race or genders, but since when is gender and race a deciding factor for the presidency (among rational thinkers)? They maybe something different to look at during press conferences, but that is no guarantee of the change voters are desiring.
I do hear a lot of wild, expensive campaign promises when they debate, but that does not equate to change and there is no way the candidates can create the changes they describe without the cooperation of the House and Senate. What is the Senate? Oh that's right...it's the part of the government wherein Obama and Clinton have been making all that change happen, or not. What about the economy? People are concerned about their jobs, the cost of living, their mortgages, and consumer prices. How do Clinton and Obama propose to rectify the economy? I don't really know (hint: neither do they), so maybe they should just tax us some more and see if that works.
Clinton is, in my opinion, the worst offender. She espouses change while being the wife of former President Clinton. How does another Clinton in the White House equal change? Sure, you may think she is not the same person as Bill, but we all know who wears the pants in that household (because we know from congressional testimony who does not wear the pants). Therefore, Hillary would just be Bill Clinton Part Duex.
So who is the real candidate of change? None of the candidates. Sure, we might take down the elephant flag and raise the jack ass flag, but the White House would be obviously devoid of noticeable change. Whatever you do this year, don't be bamboozled by the "change" spin. How can you avoid bamboozling? Just mute the TV the next time their ads or debates come on; you'll be just as educated as if you had left the sound on.