Our Candidates are talking past each other on change.

[chieftain]

It brings to mind the axiom of being divided by a common language. Any Democratic Administration is likely to bring about significant policy changes from the Bush Administration. I think that is a given, although Hillary's support of the resolutions on Iraq and Iran suggest that she would diverge the least from the current approach as compared to John and Barack.
Clinton's definition of change is focused on policy issues and leads to her genuine bewilderment as to how she cannot be given credit for a career-long commitment to improving the lives of the poor and the middle class.
Obama's focus on change goes beyond significant departures on policy matters to encompass a rejection of the bitter partisanship that was directed against the Democrats in general and the Clinton's in particular. Hillary's campaign has been shaped by her experience of being a target for some of the most vicious personal attacks ever mounted. But that experience, even though not her fault, is something that a large portion of the American people do not want to be reprised.
Barack is holding out the promise of a more conciliatory tone to achieve fundamental change in both policy and atmospherics.
Edwards clearly wants a tidal wave of change in policy and he believes that conciliation is not the way to achieve it. He clarified this position last night by saying he would work with other politicians to counter the influence of the special interest groups.
I have no trouble voting for any of these candidates. I have been in politics as long as Hillary, so maybe that colors my judgment.I firmly believe that Barack represents the most likely vehicle to achieve long held progressive goals as well as a fundamental and long-lasting reorganization of the political alignment of the country. Through little fault of her own, Clinton's electoral ceiling is too low and the forces of reaction too polarizing for her administration to be much more than a rerun of the last years of partisan warfare. John's courtroom experience may have clouded his judgment as to what it takes to move a country to liberal ideals.
I believe Obama's organizer's experience added to the legislative skills he developed in Illinois coupled with an extraordinary ability to communicate make him not only the most electable but the most likely to achieve systemic change for the many in the US not just the few.

[aquart]

1. "Organizer experience."

My sweet lord. Obama supporters actually think you can send a shepherd to tend a flock of wolves.

[Skidmore]

2. I don't think that Edwards has the market cornered on willingness to fight.

I think they are both fighters.

[chieftain]

3. No I don't. From Saul Alinsky to the folks who worked

on voter registration drives in the segregated South , organizers have gone into wolves' lairs and generated fundamental change. Your flippant and inaccurate remark notwithstanding.

[aquart]

4. I am not being flippant.

And if you told me Obama had been THERE, which he wasn't, I would have been impressed. But none of those people ever did run for president, did they?

[chieftain]

6. To assume that all Obama supporters think a particular

way is less than thoughtful and qualifies as a flippant remark. You denigrated the experience of "organizers". I pointed out that the history of organizers is replete with confronting the powers that be and changing the world. And although you are right that none of the examples I mentioned are in the mix to get the nomination but Barack's community organizing is a lineal descendant of Mr. Alinsky's efforts in Chicago. This is valuable experience and does not deserve to be trivialized.
Why did you feel it was necessary to denigrate what you think Obama supporters believe rather than engage in a discussion of what I wrote or ignore it if you so chose?

[suston96]

5. They are talking past each other because no one has defined "change".

Then when you add the "status quo" to the "change" you end up with confusion - confusion that no one seems to mind.

I dunno, when all the ballots are counted (yeah, right - counted) we think we get the "change" we demand but we end up with - you guessed it - the status quo.