CHANGE

[RichGirl]

When Obama spoke of change, he constantly referred to Bush and the last eight years. His entire campaign against McCain was based on him being with Bush 90% of the time.

He never implied a change from Clinton. Yes, he referred to changing how business was done in Washington, but again, the change was in changing minds and tactics, not changing out people.

OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT. Why would he reject President Clinton or his administration....or any democrat????

Some here think that change meant being exclusive...rejecting everything and everyone that went before in favor of all new. NOTHING that Obama said implied that. In fact, he consistently implied the opposite. He consistently talked about INCLUSION....including all, democrats and republicans, listening to all their ideas.

The change is this...going from a government where each side is so stuck in their ways that they constantly fight instead of getting things done...to a government that finds common ground and works together. How would he achieve that if he starts out by rejecting experienced members of his own party???? How do you get cooperation if you reject all existing people, who have worked hard for many years and gained experience and knowledge, in favor of all new faces. At no time did Obama imply that he wanted a team of "yes men" who only followed orders. In fact, he has said just the opposite...that he wants people with ideas, people who challenge him. Which is one of the reasons he chose Biden. He looks to the wisdom of the past for guidance. If he can get guidance from Lincoln or FDR, why not Clinton.

Those of you who are confused by Obama's choices need to spend a couple hours on You Tube and listen to his previous speeches, his convention speech, the 30 minute infomercial, etc.

In Denver he said "this is not about me". We are so used to being lied to that we have trouble actually believing someone! The fact that Obama has reached out to McCain and forgave Leiberman is proof that he meant it when he said "this is not about me".

[patrice]

1. Being personally responsible for right or wrong on War would be a Change, not only personally

but also Internationally.

[RichGirl]

6. Many were wrong about the war...

Many have CHANGED THEIR MINDS. A mistake or being wrong doesn't wipe out everything that you've done right. If it were me and I had made that mistake on the war, I would feel even more of a responsibility to make things right.

We live in a world where people make mistakes all the time big ones and little ones, personal and professional, and if they are smart they learn from them. Making a mistake or doing the wrong thing doesn't negate everything good or right you ever did or the opportunity to do make things right in the future.

To imply that anyone who voted for the war should now be excluded from any envolvement in foreign policy is very narrow and harsh. It is much more important that the person is intelligent, knowledgeable and understands foreign policy, is trusted and capable.

[patrice]

2. It would be Change if people, including ex-presidents, would reveal to us how much

they've made, directly or INDIRECTLY (speaking fees and such) off of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. It's called War Profiteering and I want to know who they are. THAT would be a Change.

[RichGirl]

7. Well...I don't know about you, but....

I believe that the man that I voted for is on top of that! I don't think he needs a text message from me informing him of this!

[Jennicut]

3. Obama is a good man. We have not had a good man for prsident in 8 years.

Clinton had his faults but who can say he was not much much better then Bush? Obama is the real deal and some have trouble trusting again I guess.

[patrice]

4. This country has been morally, economically, and physically RAPED.

Let's talk about trust - Now . . . .

[Jennicut]

8. Not by Obama though. It was the right wing. So why throw so much at someone

who had little to do with that? He didn't even come in to national office until 2004!

[RichGirl]

10. Trust...is ultimately a matter of choice.

I've spent eight years being suspicious, expecting the worst, complaining...all with good reason. I'm tired of it. Of course Obama can fail and he can disappoint us. But there is lots of reason to believe that he will come through for us.

[Clio the Leo]

5. Exactly, thank you! NT

[Honeycombe8]

9. Errr...yes, he did. He spoke of how Reagan & others had brought new ideas (leaving out Clintons)...

plus, he didn't really have to say "change from the Clintons," SINCE THE CLINTONS WERE ON THE TICKET.

The voters had a clear choice...change, or the Clinton administration again.

He clearly meant change from the PAST, including the Clintons. If he had not meant that, then he would've been supporting the Clintons.

Duh.

[RichGirl]

11. During the primaries he was running against Hillary.

YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE PERSON YOU ARE RUNNING AGAINST. Even though he was running against her, he ALWAYS spoke highly of her...her intelligence, knowledge, experience.

Look at your reasoning: One statement about Reagan during the primaries where he doesn't mention Clinton had great ideas...and you interpret that to mean that he was running against the Clinton administration?????? What about the millions of good things he said about the Clinton's???? Since the primaries, he has actually complimented the Clinton Administration many times.

I NEVER got any indication that the choice was between change and the Clintons. If you did, then do what I suggested, watch some videos.

You said "plus, he didn't really have to say "change from the Clintons," SINCE THE CLINTONS WERE ON THE TICKET." He didn't have to say it??? Did he wink when he DIDN'T say it? The truth is HE DIDN'T SAY IT. That's what you have to realize...he didn't say it, NEVER said it.

Duh.