Everyone is talking about the best President candidate for change. It seems people want a change.

I thought the 2006 elections was an election for change. People voted out the Republicans out of Congress and the Democrats in because they wanted a change.

OK, what has change in the last year?

All the Democrats can do is attack Bush and say the word "change".  They have zero agenda.  Obama will eentually have to get specific and then he will start to stumble.  Of course the media will attack any candidate that dare challenge him.

Hilary Clinton caught shit for the debate where she got pissed at Obama and Edwards but she was correct. These people believe that change comes simply from repeating it over & over again.

Clinton went from Unbeatable to Unelectable.
Huckabee went from "who?" to "Whoa!"
Obama went from African-American to "Black"
Rudy went from 911!! to "911? my campaign died!"
Romney became this seasons official flip-flopper.
Edwards got a new hair stylist.

But, Bush is still an idiot, and Cheney is still the anti-Christ.

Change that would happen that quickly would mean a revolution-- to the worse.

Bush has more oversight. The abuses have been stonewalled. Gonzales is gone. Carl Rove, unable to to operate with impunity, is gone. Tom Delay and his abuse of House procedures is gone. Abuse of power is being resisted. Iraq, if not nearly won, is quiet, with Patreaus employing some "liberal" strategies-- like not raiding insurgent strongholds in Anbar province.  

I count my blessings. The things that worried me the most have been relieved.

Now, last night I was noticing Republicans talking about "change" as well. So, it seems if Bush came in on the motto of "Compassionate Conservative," then this Republican bunch are "Progressive Conservatives." Both are laughable oxymorons. Sort of like the government encouraging free-market solutions, also contradictory, as a free market should not require government encouragement.

I accidentally hit this board and I'm glad I saw your thread.  I hope you're right about Obama.

I can;t believe I actually feel sympathy for HRC.  It's amazing to see how many people with formal education are falling for Obama's empty rhetoric.

Truism : the one constant in life is change.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The more things don't change, the more they stay the same.

The more things  stay the same, the more they don't change.

The more things  stay the same, the more they change.


PS zin, i think in Canada there is a political party named the Progressive Conseratives, and their base is in the western provinces of Canada.  I think Australia also has a political party with a similar oxymoronic name.

Every 4 years everyone running for president runs on "change" a tired rhetoric. No one has ever been able to change anything since I became eligible to vote. I for one is tired of same old rhetoric and Obama's I am for change rhetoric.

Yesterday's debate clarified few things for me.

1) John Edwards combative style and attitude will get nothing accomplished because no one will go along with anything. Well, really don't have to worry about that because he is not going to make it.

Supporting Obama and attacking Clinton was classic middle school response. He want to be President of the US, may be Edwards should run for class president. Lame.

2) Obama talks about change. What changes are he going make? Did not show any grasp of domestic issues or international. Yep, he is simply going to go into NW Pakistan or bomb NW frontier of Pakistan if there is evidence. If he does that, the war in Iraq and Vietnam and the mishandling of Katrina will look like your toilet backed up. Let us say Obama actually bombs NW Pakistan, the first thing they will do is launch Nuclear missiles at India. Clinton was the only one who showed any understanding of the geopolitical quagmire in South East Asia. She was also absolutely correct in stating that Nuclear Arsenal of Pakistan needs to be under the supervision of US and UK. There are plenty of avenues to pursuing that starting with the Billion dollars we give Pakistan every year and the track record of proliferation. A.Q. Khan was just a fall guy, there is absolutely now way he could have accomplished it without ISI support.

3) No one besides Clinton showed any grasp of the domestic policy, the economy, foreign policy or any other issues facing us. Clinton was also right-on when she answered the question about stateless terrorists. Overwhelming power!

4) It was clear, Edwards accomplished zulch during his 6 year tenure as senator.

5) Obama, don't really know what he has done.

6) I want to see someone elected who can get Washington working for the people and Hilary was 100% correct when she said Bill balanced the budget and left with a surplus. Bill Clinton got results by working together and not fighting for change.

Republicans mostly didn't show any concern or understanding of any issues other than fear mongering. The only exception was Ron Paul who showed basic understanding of Economics. Some of his ideas about monetary policy and tax may be way out there but he is right on the money about debt held by China and the exchange rate.

Others are deluded when they said they want to build the strongest army in the world. How are they going to do that? Borrowing from China? You can't build crap without strong and overpowering economy, you can't borrow your way out of problems, when you are the borrower, you can't apply pressure.

"Re: Voting For Change
Posted by kerrakles, 1/6/2008 11:40:01 AM
I want to see someone elected who can get Washington working for the people and Hilary was 100% correct when she said Bill balanced the budget and left with a surplus.
Bill Clinton got results by working together and not fighting for change."

"Others are deluded when they said they want to build the strongest army in the world. How are they going to do that?"


... Actually it was the Republicans and Newt who made Clinton balance the budget..

WE ALREADY HAVE THE STRONGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD.

-- Modified on 1/6/2008 6:38:45 PM

Democrat Congress went from majority 2 a joke
Obama went from lightweight to Kennedy Lite
Global Warming caused the coldest fall in 47 years
McGovern went from McGovern 2 still being McGovern
DoctorGonzo is still bitchin bout the same shit

But, Bush is still your President and Cheney still has Haliburton stock in his Blind Trust...

Change isn't necessarily a good thing. The biggest agent of change in recent years has been George W. Bush and look where that got us -- from peace and prosperity with a budget surplus to the biggest debtor nation in history and perpetual war(s).  Be careful what you wish for.

George W Bush is leaving office, so change will happen no matter who you vote for.  So it is a silly platform to run on.

Now the choices for change are socialism or capitalism.  The choice is yours.