As my friend King stated in one of his recent posts, the buzzword, specifically on the Democratic side of things has been distilled down to one syllable..."change".
I have a few thoughts about that.
Is it not true that simply by ridding ourselves of the
So ANY candidate in this current election could, theoretically, be correct in saying he or she was a candidate representing "change".
Hillary, I do believe, would bring "change". Fewer cowboy foreign policies. More focus on middle class and domestic issues. Less blatant criminality and access selling. So, yes, Hillary actually would represent "change".....and for the better.
John Edwards vision of change is actually, at least I believe this, the same as Barak Obama's. Edwards, rightly, wants to confront, headon, the current corporate control of our federal government. That's the kind of "change" America desperately needs. Corporate lawyers from Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Defense......write the laws our representatives pass. Their lawyers write the laws, then their money bribes the representatives to vote for the laws they've written. Then the same corporations hire the representatives after their terms, sometimes before like with Trent Boy Lott, to help them get easier access to the same government they used to work for. That needs changed. All of it. Edwards is for that.
Barak Obama is talking about something a bit different. He's saying that we need the "change" Hillary and Edwards are talking about...absolutely....he's for that kind of "change" and more just like it. But Obama is saying that in order to do what Hillary and Edwards want to do....you have to have a candidate who can get the support of a broad swath of voters. A candidate who is such a change from the status quo millions of turned off and new voters will respond. From all camps....right, left, center, independent,...and of course, he's right, that's the kind of mandate a president would need.
He believes he is that candidate.
He could be right.
About This Blog