I think anyone who falls behind any candidate because they are the candidate for “change” (amorphous, undefined, feel good rhetoric that it is) is doing this country no more service than the people who voted for George Bush because they wanted to hang out with him at a chili cook-off. It doesn’t mean anything. The concept itself is so sophomoric that it literally leaves me wondering if the polity on either side of the political divide has a collective intelligence greater than that of Ralph Wiggums, who at least managed to eek out a semblance of a platform when he ran for president in Springfield’s primary last night on the Simpsons.
This whole “change” issue is an embarrassment to the party. Bill Richardson, got it right on Saturday. When did experience and a demonstrable record become a bad thing? I for one would much rather see Mme. Albright than Ms. Rice any day. Know why? Because I think she did a good job, not perfect of course, but good. Should she be hidden from site because she has already done a good job?
Heaven help us all if we have gotten to the point where our entire executive staff needs to report for their first day as novices to the vocation. “You’re doin’ a heck of a job, Brownie” mean anything to anyone?
This is not to say the Clinton or Richardson are the superior candidates per se, they very well may not be, and Obama may in fact be a better president. But anyone who chooses Obama solely because he is the greatest agent for “change” (or argues instead that it is really Clinton or Edwards who gets that crown) is making a terrible mistake (imho) and is actively embracing hypocrisy if they voiced any concern over the lemming mentality that elected W in 2000.
What do other people think? Is “change” enough of a reason to vote for a candidate? Have we gotten to the point where feeling good about our vote is more important that making good choices regardless of how they make us feel?
The would-be presidents are all spouting “change” now, but of course none of them states exactly what kind of change. It’s simply the buzzword of the moment. Vote for me and we’ll have change, they assert. Please tell us, then, what kind of change? More freebies for the indolent? More regulation and taxes? Inferior socialist health care for everyone? More government spending, manipulation and money creation?
They are all despicable prevaricators. Certainly there are degrees, and at the top of their parties are Hillary “Schoolmarm Knows Best” Clinton and Rudy “I Was There” Giuliani. The former claims, although her marriage was and is obviously one of convenience, that she was essentially Bill’s “prez-partner” when he occupied the White House. If that’s true, then is Bill not guilty of some sort of high crime or misdemeanor? I doubt whether many citizens voted for a presidential partnership when they cast their ballots. If Bill wasn’t up to the task alone, shouldn’t the V.P. have taken over? Or was Hillary truly a trusted advisor, perhaps representing Bill’s female constituency? Or is she just a simple liar? These are questions which will never have answers, since the world’s sleaziest couple refuses to make public the pertinent records of the Bill Clinton years…………….
<
p>This Repulsive Campaign
…what you think should happen to your salary.
It is also what your boss thinks should happen to your salary.
have to use it 67 times in 30 seconds it is subliminal advertizing.
It means you will have to buy health insurance that will deny your claims routinely and systematically.
<
p>It means more money for surveillance, thought crime enforcement.
<
p>It means Bushco and the entire administration does not do jail time.
“Senator Obama, you talk about change an awful lot, with few specifics. Maybe it would be easier to come up with the things you would not change. What would you not change?”
<
p>Of course, it would probably just be yucky pablum about “The Greatness of America” and things like that.
<
p>What would you suggest should not be changed? (Keep in mind that all answers become property of BMG Media Empire LLC, so Obama won’t be able to use them in the debate.)
I think I would keep the time zones thingie … Just wouldnt do to have the sun rising at 2 am in some places and sometime in the afternoon in others …
Time zones are a good thing, all else is suspect.