Bombarded by "Change"

If the final numbers from this week's historic Super Tuesday primaries tell us anything, it's that the 2008 presidential election still remains impossible to predict. One thing, however, is virtually guaranteed: that all of the campaigns will continue to invoke the word "change."

Indeed, ever since Barack Obama sailed to victory at the Iowa caucuses by presenting himself as an agent of change, each of the candidates has adopted that magic word as a personal mantra. And yet, while the idea of transforming government is obviously inspiring to the electorate, for some, it can all be a little too much. To understand why, click the arrow below.

Comments

[BUSHsurvivor]

And yet...if you look back to 1988, you will see that Jesse Jackson was the one to run on a campaign of change.

[desmirl]

Change?
Change the Iraq policy. Demand the Iraqis get their act together and let us get our troops out.
Balance the budget-actually overbalance the budget so that the national debt comes down.
Change the balance of trade so that we are at parity with our trading partners.
Change the policy that allows corporations to take tax write-offs for 'losses' they incur while moving American jobs offshore.
Change the healthcare policies of the nation so that affordable healthcare is available to everyone. For those who legitimately can't afford heathcare, subsidize them. We do it for big farmers and big corporations.
Just a couple of changes that might be fun to work toward.

[mamacita]

uh...pardo­n me, but....Joh­n Edwards, not Barack Obama, etc, was the one to build his campaign on "Change", and even tho the MSM couldn't be bothered with John Edwards, apparently his ideas caught on with the other candidates' campaign managers.

"Change" is good, but give me more specifics.

[sonofloud]

Change is one of those vague buzzwords that can mean anything.

If you want specifics, plans, details, look to Hillary.

If you want more nice, warm, fuzzy talk that sounds great but doesn't mean anything vote for Obama.

[sparkandy]

Can't wait to see that movie. I'd sure like for someone to actually tell me WHAT they're gonna change and how they plan to do it. That's my big problem with Obama. Change is just an amporphous concept that lures in the naive and the uneducated, but has no real meaning.

[ac1]

Repackaged, but not change.
http://www.theroot.com/id/44630

.

[Evidence]

GWB got elected on a "change" platform.

Look where it got us.

[ljsfolly]

I think they all ought to explain what "change" means to them as this seems like the bandwagon effect from Barack.

[weslenforever]

They all say "change" so often it no longer has any meaning. Huckabee thinks "change" means running the country like a church. McCain thinks "change" means changing 2 wars for 3. Hillary thinks "change" means trading a male president for a female president. Obama thinks "change" means changing a white male president for a black male president. Bush thinks "change" means changing illegal to legal for any corrupt proposition he wishes to take up, like torture and treason. Most republicans think "change" means getting rid of all social programs so they can change their bank accounts upward. Most democrats think "change" means making Spanish language classes mandatory for all Americans.
Not one of them has a clue that to most Americans I KNOW, change means stopping the corruption of our "leaders", weeding out the bad politicians and get some honest people on Capitol Hill. I, for one, am sick to DEATH of seeing people getting elected to government who HATE government and only run for office so they can destroy it from within.

[Merlin7]

Progressive change is virtually impossible as long as conservative blocs control both major parties in Congress. All this talk about "change" is just election-year posturing. Americans should grow up and quit falling for the periodic key-jangling of presidential elections, which are largely a side-show. Real change can come only by seriously changing the make-up of Congress. It's time to rewrite the Constitution and restructure the government to restore the promise of American democracy.

Of course, the right-wingers have such tight control of our society that any changes in the Constitution now probably would result in Americans being forced by law to attend Sunday School and contribute 10 percent of their income to the large corporation of their choice.

[theuniversal]

So if this were a game of follow the leader, the leader would be ... Everybody who has been following the race closely knows the only one clear answer to that.

[Cue entry angry and misinformed Hillarians]

[ClaudiaJean]

yeah, but Biden dropped out. NEXT...