The 'change exchange' in last night's Democratic debate was certainly not very convincing for any one side, so why is that? It was heated, and ammo was firing so why did it feel like an empty and hollow exchange where no one was clearly the 'Candidate of Change'?
Could it be **gasp** because none of the candidates truly represent change?
Let's face it. Any Democrat in the White House is going to be a change over what we have now. There is no question.
But we are not asking for a change for change sake, we are asking for a completely new direction for this country.
Hillary thinks having a woman in the White House represents change. Well, I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. Actually I could write an entire diary about how wrong this argument is, but I will spare myself and Kossacks the time and aggravation. And '35 years of experience' that represents real change? That's a padded resume if there ever was one.
On the surface, Obama is the candidate of change. He is young, intelligent and full of passion. His victory speech in Iowa was one of those rare moments out of an abundance of ordinary ones that makes you glad you follow politics. It was one of the best speeches I have heard in a very long time and was almost powerful enough to sway this undecided voter towards the Obama camp. But when digging deeper into his alliances, it makes you wonder if maybe he isn't just another good, quickly on his way to great, politician.
Edwards has been working his butt off, there is no doubt. He never fails to mention that his campaign does not accept money from special interest groups and he has moved up the polls from sheer hard work. After all, It takes alot of work for a guy with a $400 haircut to convince ordinary folks that he is a man of the people, a true populist. His dad may have worked hard at that Textile mill for 36 years(mostly in a management position), but Edwards fails to mention that he was raised in a firmly middle class family. And as for fighting for the little guy, people are allowed to have a change of heart. But there was Fortress and the Bankruptcy Overhaul Bill, so I'm highly skeptical. And I don't particularly care for candidates that have changes of heart, I want someone who gets things right the first time. Like in the case of the Iraq resolution, for instance. Hardly a trivial matter.
So where does that leave us? Unfortunately the top runners all come with baggage. Would they be a change over Dubya? Of course, but I would hope that we are all past that by now. Talk is cheap. After all, we did have the 2006 election mandate for change, which has been an absolute disaster. We are looking for much, much more than that and I'm still unconvinced that any of these three candidates are going to bring the kind of change that we desperately need.
Status Quo? Well, let’s start with impeachment. Have any of you been against the status quo enough to take a firm stand on accountability and impeachment? Yes, apparently that ‘status quo’ isn’t quite bad enough to take head-on.
Last night was a long debate and had a format that gave more time to the candidates to speak than any other debate we’ve seen so far. So why did we not hear one crack against this corrupt administration and the full-on assault on civil liberties that it has wreaked? NSA wiretapping anyone? If you bring up the Patriot Act as a negative, you should be required to at least mention that it is unconstitutional. It isn’t just some mud pie for you to throw around!
Is there no one who will say it no uncertain terms that this war was illegal from the start and that keeping troops there for one more day is a continued act of aggression? Governor Richardson certainly was willing to go further than the others, but with Kucinich and Gravel absent there was no voice of reason on this illegal war, or on accountability for that matter. And yes, they too have problems as well, but any discussion of change is full of hot air if there is no acknowledgment of this dangerous precipice we are currently confronting.
Out of all the Presidential Candidates that took the stage last night, Ron Paul was the only one out of ten, Republican or Democrat, that was talking about a sensible foreign policy. If that doesn't worry you... well, you'd better be worried. That's not good folks.
Is it a coincidence that shortly after we receive the NIE on Iran that allows us a sigh of relief and a return to reason, we are confronted with an ‘out-of-control Pakistan’? Keep those enemies coming -- God forbid we could ever dream of ditching the war drums. And listening to Obama talk about Pakistan should scare the bejeebus out of any true progressive! Gibson was right, there's not much difference from this kind of rhetoric and the Bush doctrine.
Long story short, I don’t see all that much change with this field of Dems, at least not enough that would warrant all this talk about it. I see absolutely no reason to think that Clinton, Edwards or Obama represent anything different from what this Democratic Congress has given us over this past year - Lots of talk and no action.
I'm sure some folks here will tell me I'm wrong, but 2007 was indeed a learning experience. Something about fool me once...