Barack to the Future: the Audacity of Hype

“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.” Barack Obama

"I pushed legislation through over the objections of the Pentagon over the threat of a veto from President (George W.) Bush. I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change."Hillary Clinton

"Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That's exactly what happens.” John Edwards

What is this “change” theme and why is it limited to the democratic candidates? Do republicans want things to stay the same? Is the “change” they have in mind not replacing George Bush, a lame duck with less than a year in office? Well, great news – if we do nothing we’ll get “change”.

So if “change” is strictly a democrat thing would it be fair to say that the change they talk about ad infinitum but never explain in any kind of detail is all about growing the federal government and redistributing income and wealth? Why can that not be said out-loud? Is it too onerous? Or is it just that using the code is cooler somehow? And how is it that a school of thought that might be traced to Woodrow Wilson or somewhere in that vicinity can be branded as “change”. And if change is defined as a difference in the status quo, how can Hillary Clinton who has been lurking around the West Wing of the White House and the halls of Congress for twenty-some years sell herself as an “agent of change”.

Another democrat favorite is “I will fight for you every day in Washington (Charleston, Springfield, etc.)”. I’ve heard it from Jay Rockefeller to John Edwards to Al Gore to Orpha Klempy. Who do they propose to fight? The people who give them campaign contributions or do they only fight those who do not donate? Does the DNC mail out a list of talking points?

Robert Samuelson has an article about the agents of change and how candid they might be:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803488.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

My favorite is how they are all claiming they are going to "take care of our children". That's my personal favorite.

One of my favorite quotes from an unknown source. "Hillary Clinton says it takes a village. I've seen the village and I don't want it raising my children."

I've seen big government and I don't want it anywhere near my children.

Thanks for the post, Ohio.

This should ice it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22590831/

It's always sad when love dies. lol

OK, can I just say that John Kerry and John Edwards, by themselves, are enough to make me gag without the ambiguously gay photos!

What the devil is John Kerry doing with his endorsement except showing that he has no loyalty to his friends? Really, what good did JK do in the process? Couldn't he have just kept his mouth shut and then supported whoever the nominee was? Is this pit viper slithering for a VP?

I suppose as I would never vote for Obama or Kerry shows that I'm not the target of such an endorsement. Can anyone tell me why it makes sense?

Now I cant eat for a week, thanks a lot Keli!

SheikBen wrote:OK, can I just say that John Kerry and John Edwards, by themselves, are enough to make me gag without the ambiguously gay photos!

What the devil is John Kerry doing with his endorsement except showing that he has no loyalty to his friends? Really, what good did JK do in the process? Couldn't he have just kept his mouth shut and then supported whoever the nominee was? Is this pit viper slithering for a VP?

I suppose as I would never vote for Obama or Kerry shows that I'm not the target of such an endorsement. Can anyone tell me why it makes sense?

George Snuffupagus was ask about this on GMA this morning. He said that there was a great deal of tension between Kerry and Edwards during the last campaign, particularly over Kerry's refusal to rebuff the swift boaters more strenuously. Before Kerry selected Edwards for his VP, he coerced a promise out of Edwards not to run now if they lost in 04. Edwards broke that promise within 3 months. According to George, the two can't stand each other now.

Obviously the candidate who has the best claim to the "change" title is Romney...

Well I still think it's unfortunate, and I still must wonder whether John Kerry is desperately trying to appear relevant.

There seems to be a hit parade of heavy hitters throwing their weight behind this Barack Obama. Gary Hart joined the list today, I believe. I wonder frankly what the devil is going on. Do people really tell a difference in policy, or have they come to the conclusion that Obama is the fastest horse? I have to think there is some measure of political expediency being exploited here.

I should really like to hear if Obama and Clinton are willing to take different and clear policy positions and actually discuss with the public the merits of theirs over the other's.

Maybe the endorsements are de facto Cabinet applications...

ohio county wrote:Maybe the endorsements are de facto Cabinet applications...

I think Bill Richardson was running for either the SOS office or the VP.

There does seem to be a backlash against Hillary, doesn't there.

ohio county wrote:Maybe the endorsements are de facto Cabinet applications...

Could be. That would tell us at least which horse they're banking will win as opposed to place or show.

On an unrelated note,

Someone suggested to me that he expected Bill Richardson to be the Vice President so as to shore up Latinos disaffected with the Republicans.

I think OC is right about the whole cabinet thing.

SheikBen wrote:On an unrelated note,

Someone suggested to me that he expected Bill Richardson to be the Vice President so as to shore up Latinos disaffected with the Republicans.

I think OC is right about the whole cabinet thing.

I was telling my husband just a few days ago I expect Bill Richardson to be the pick for VP for that reason but also because of his foreign policy experience. That is an area of serious weakness, at least imho, for Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

Stephanie wrote:
I was telling my husband just a few days ago I expect Bill Richardson to be the pick for VP for that reason but also because of his foreign policy experience. That is an area of serious weakness, at least imho, for Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

I think for Obama at least, if he 'leaked' that Richardson would be a top choice for SOS and possibly someone like Joe Biden as a VP, he would see a jump in his numbers.

Hillary won't do that because she's not going to be outshined by anyone.

For Edwards, it doesn't matter. He's done.

Joe Biden would be a big help to Hillary especially I think. We don't like Hillary. I have no desire to have a glass of wine or lunch with her ever and her crocodile tears only made me want to be on another continent.

Joe Biden is another story. I don't agree with Biden on much of anything, but I like him. He's witty and charming and seems like a real person instead of some plastic replica. As an added bonus, he's actually got a bit of experience.

Stephanie wrote:Joe Biden would be a big help to Hillary especially I think. We don't like Hillary. I have no desire to have a glass of wine or lunch with her ever and her crocodile tears only made me want to be on another continent.

Joe Biden is another story. I don't agree with Biden on much of anything, but I like him. He's witty and charming and seems like a real person instead of some plastic replica. As an added bonus, he's actually got a bit of experience.

Thing is, I don't think Hillary would take someone like Biden because she won't be overshadowed by anyone and she has to be the smartest person on in the room. She won't have that with Biden. I could see her taking Bill Richardson, but not Biden.

I look for Richardson to endorse Clinton before Nevada.

shermangeneral wrote:I look for Richardson to endorse Clinton before Nevada.

He knew that he was pulling votes for her so he stepped aside. Imagine that.