What does "Change in Washington" MEAN, precisely?

[GihrenZabi]

At this point, my faith in the intelligence of the American electorate is along the lines of my faith in the Federal government at large, which is to say fairly nonexistent.

Thus, it doesn't surprise me when people respond to bullshit calls for "Change in Washington" when, to me, there aren't any actual calls for change. Then again, what suffices for actual "change" in my mind is pretty radical - term limits, making the inclusion of any outside money in any form a crime and punishable by immediate removal from office, elimination of the Executive branch altogether, a move to a Parliamentary system, etc.

You know...actually CHANGING things.

This is a pipe dream, of course...but I wonder: what do people think of when they think of "Change in Washington?"

1) Where, precisely, is the bar raised to? How high or low for you? What does "change" mean to you, personally?

2) To what degree do you expect your personal definition of change to be fulfilled?

Please be specific. Don't say "Change is a return to sanity in Washington," or "Repealing Bush initiatives," or other easy answers. Be specific. What policy decisions, structural adjustments, etc., do you consider "Change in Washington?"

[TexasObserver]

1. It means CHANGE. It means we'll do things better.

Is this really over your head?

Or is this merely a continuation of your post primary pissiness?

[GihrenZabi]

8. That's not an answer

"Change" is just a word. Taken out of context, it means absolutely nothing substantive.

Was my question over your head? *raises eyebrow*

What does "change" mean for you? What has to change? Answer the two questions if you want to have meaningful discussion...otherwise those who live in glass houses shouldn't talk about "pissiness." :)

[TexasObserver]

18. If you have to have the word explained to you ...

... it's a safe bet explaining it won't help.

[GihrenZabi]

20. That's twice you've refused to answer

You don't know what "change" means to you, do you? Just admit it's a buzzword with no meaning, then, already!

Note that I didn't ask what the word "change" means as in Webster's. Don't be obtuse - I asked you to define what "change" meant TO YOU in terms of what policies/actions would actually be "change."

Here, let me try to give you an example to make the thought more palatable:

"I think change would be ending lobbyist influence in Washington by making their contributions illegal."

See, that's a specific change - you can name it, qualify it.

Just saying "change is change" is the sort of thing I would expect from a 5 year old.

[cliffordu]

33. Get thee to his web site and do a little readin'

[GihrenZabi]

37. I have

And there's nothing substantive there, for one.

Besides, this question was NOT about "What Obama said he's going to do" but "What YOU think of as meaningful change and what YOU think is actually going to happen."

I take it you don't know on both counts? A fair answer...and a better one than "Go look at his website."

Sorry, but I am WAY past taking any politician at their word, as I feel any thoughtful observer should be.

[TexasObserver]

43. Change means not doing things the way the Bushes do them.

Change means not doing things the way the Clintons do them.

Change means not relying upon the lobby to pay for a campaign.

Change means involving millions of citizens in the democratic process, citizens new to that process.

Change means pissing off and angering curmudgeons who can't handle the truth.

Change means accepting that it's time for a new generation to take over.

Change means you will be unhappy every remaining day of your life, because you can't handle change.

[GihrenZabi]

45. *yawn*

Once again, more infantile behavior. Welcome to the ignore list.

[TexasObserver]

47. well, since you've got your mouth open ...

... why don't you say something intelligent for a CHANGE?

[cliffordu]

58. I lost my can of trollbegone some time back...I didn't think I'd need it

after the primary season ended....but I guessed wrong, didn't I?

[TexasObserver]

59. Yeah, it kind of reminds me of ...

... a lingering jalapeno fart that just won't go away

Something tells me this particular identity is a sock puppet for some better known recently departed poster. Notice that the poster had almost no posts until AFTER the primary season, and then suddenly feigned one disappointment after another regarding Obama.

[cliffordu]

60. That's exactly right - I used to live in Austin and I know exactly what a

Jalapeno fart does to a room.

The Humanity, O, The Humanity!!!

There are a couple who ask the same question over and over and over...looks to me like some folks got talking points and this specific tactic.

[GihrenZabi]

64. The ignore list is your friend. :) N/T

[cliffordu]

87. Nope. I love looking at the stupidity.

[TexasObserver]

91. does she know you disagree with her?

doesn't seem to understand that

[cliffordu]

93. No. That's my point, exactly......

:rofl:

[opihimoimoi]

2. Polarity shift: from Negative to Positive..that sez it all. Obama is a positive guy

who will set the tone.

The Pigs have rope a duped us for too long....what with this Machismo Crap of clearing brush on the "Pig Farm"....machette, hammer, chain saw, etc....very poor decisions, poor policies...etc etc

Why does McSame wanna continue a losing policy? Who knows?

I'm voting for Positive Change...fuck the present crap which McSame wishes to follow

[GihrenZabi]

9. Again...

But what does change MEAN to you?

Setting a tone isn't change. "Positive Change" is a meaningless phrase.

What KIND of changes?

[DangerDave921]

16. Exactly!

I've never liked this mindless repeating of "I want change" because it does not articulate any specifics. I want clear and specific proposals, not just some mantra of change.

Think about it. If your husband or wife came up to you and said "I want this marriage to change", what would that mean? If your boss announced one day, "I'm going to make some big changes around here", what would that mean?

I think everyone who wants "change" is superimposing their own beliefs on what a candidate will do.

[GihrenZabi]

26. This would go along with Obama's "template" philosophy

Remain blank so that others can impose their own ideas of who you are upon you.

It worked like gangbusters in the primary, didn't it? All us progressives projected onto Obama that he was a progressive.

Fool me once, shame on you. Now we've caught on.

[DangerDave921]

29. Not so fast

He may be a progressive. I just can't tell anymore. But I do know that he is a politician, so I understand there will be some shifting of positions between the primary and the GE.

And to be honest, I am leery of believing that any one person can effect change in a system that is so entrenched as is our federal government.

I'm more of a middle of the road Dem myself, not a true believer. I liked Biden originally.

[opihimoimoi]

36. All I know/feel is Obama means more Optimism than McPseudo

Why are we tearing down/questioning Obama when the alternatrive is more of the same Pub Crap which has ruined many lives.???

Put your faith in the man....he will do FAR better than the Pubs...

[GihrenZabi]

38. Stop assuming

Who's tearing down Obama?

I'm asking people to qualify what they actually think change is, and what change they expect to happen.

[DangerDave921]

63. Friendly advice

Some folks on here are very gun-shy about anything that smacks of criticism. Even questioning something can be taken to be an insult, a slight, an attack, or tearing down. I'm with you, though. If you can't question something, it's hard to have a rational discussion.

[opihimoimoi]

66. Sorry, I mistook the post for a devious question....if its sincere, then a discussion

may ensue.

I assumed and I am wrong....however, given this Board, do ya blame me...?

[GihrenZabi]

68. Not at all.

No apologies required, but thank you. :)

[GihrenZabi]

67. No worries, DangerDave

I know. I make liberal use of the ignore function. It's one thing to disagree with someone and have a rational, intelligent argument to back it up. That's useful and I respect it, and enjoy honest debate with someone even if we are diametrically opposed in our positions.

If someone can't be rational in their debates, then I just shut them out. The peanut gallery has no place in public discourse, IMHO. This is why I hate the press so much - they've abandoned any responsibilities they might have had as the fourth estate to create and support intelligent discourse.
It's all posturing and loud-mouthedness and empty space.

Which is why I don't generally watch the news. I put them on the ignore list, too. lol

[opihimoimoi]

85. I watch the news for Trends...loking for whats good and whats not

When I say good....the qualifier is:::: IS IT GOOD FOR HUMANITY....? At least part of "it"...if not, then it falls into other categories: some of which might be not so good...and in fact some worse...like its a bad idea disguised as good...

With that said:

This Board is one of the largest around...many many view points are expressed, ranted on. Its all good...I ty to filter as best as I can to contemplate answers and solutions in the form of expressing concerns/observations when we go off in counterproductive paths...such as the direction of the Bush /GOP in recent years...it looks feels mostly bad unless of course ya happen to be connected to the TROUGH....most peeps are worried sick....

What is the one answer? For now....Vote BLUE....not all Dems share the view of Benevolence/Altruism but they got better odds than the Pubs...in due time, we hope to see a difference by voting out those that display selfishness/greed/etc

The BIG Picture is where its at...not the moot stuff from the Pubs who seem to have no clue Governing our Nation and thinking for the Planet at the same time.

Come, we go eat, drink, laugh, smile, enjoy, and sing...

[cliffordu]

88. Caught on to what?

[Youphemism]

3. "a move to a Parliamentary system..."

Great Britain has that -- shouting each other down on the floor of the House of Commons, cat-calling as people who have the floor try to speak.

We don't need that... We already have Reality TV.

[GihrenZabi]

10. They also...

Can have more parties, can throw out their chief executive whenever he fucks up without having to wait every four years...

It's a more democratic system than the one we have, IMHO...

[Youphemism]

14. Yeah, well, I don't think I'd use it as a success model...

Using that system, they've been sucking our President's anus for the last 8 years, kept themselves in an economic rut for much longer than that, and they do it all while running their government like a bunch of kids trying to choose team captains on a playground.

More than two viable political parties is the only change you mentioned that I'll get behind. There are too many issues that require positions to be represented by only two major parties. The FISA vote highlighted that, along with the original decision to go into Iraq, etc.

But good luck getting more than two parties. The one thing the Republicans and Democrats work together on is keeping anybody else from elbowing their way in.

[GihrenZabi]

15. I was using it...

...as an example of what I think "substantive change," which is to say actual change, means.

I don't think you can blame the Brits' system of government for why they function as our Lieutenants in Europe, however.

[Youphemism]

17. Sure I can. :)

[GihrenZabi]

21. Technically you can do anything...

...but usually shouldn't do just anything. :P

[DaDooRonRon]

4. It's a buzzword - nothing more

Both sides have used this "change" mantra forever - the Repubs will do "change" better in the form of lower taxes and less regulation, the Dems will do "change" in the form of helping the middle class, etc. Both are of course fantasies designed to pull in the gullible (as both sides are tied at the hip to corporate interests), but I bet you already knew that. :)

Nothing (aside from the superficial) will ever actually change, but both sides need something to legitimize their respective beliefs that their team is God incarnate while the other team is Hell's Waiting Room - hence the lining up by both sides to defend their respective holograms.

P.S. The snarky responses you'll get when daring to question is a hint, too. :)

[GihrenZabi]

11. Oh, absolutely

Part of why I posed the question was to see if anyone COULD answer it...and look at the snarky responses I've gotten already. All tacit admissions that people have no idea what "change" could actually be, and anyone who thoughtfully approaches the question like you have done is probably going to have to come to the same conclusion - it's fucking meaningless.

If people want to support a candidate, fine - but know WHY you're supporting them. Have SUBSTANTIVE reasons.

"Democracy depends on the education and participation of the citizenry." We have been lacking the former qualification for, hell, maybe since the very beginning. Which explains a lot, doesn't it?

[DaDooRonRon]

22. To many here, change=my side winning

That is about the extent of their looking into the subject.

If change ever occurred in the electoral process, for example - allowing all candidates equal monetary and media access - they would lead the brigade to "change" it back to what it used to be if "fringe candidates" ever got traction.

Sometimes the hypocrisy is just overwhelming, but then again sometimes you have to laugh when someone is shouting "we want change!" at you through the walls of a two-party glass house with a "keep out" sign on the door.

[SparkyMac]

5. I agree with you

Anybody who wants "change" without specifying what that change is ....is not overly bright. I'm sure the people in Germany in the early 1930s wanted change, also. But look what they got.

As the old saying goes-- "Be careful what you ask for. You may get it".

At this point, my faith in the intelligence of the American electorate is along the lines of my faith in the Federal government at large, which is to say fairly nonexistent.

Welcome to the club.

[JBoris]

6. Most importantly it means McSame is bush and Obama is the future. Its a sound-bite, not a policy. nt

[Ron Green]

7. 1. Shut down K Street. 2. Remove everyone on the FCC board and start over.

3. Start a campaign to remove corporate personhood from our legal system.

[GihrenZabi]

12. Thank you!

For actually answering the question! :P

But now part 2 - do you honestly think the Democratic candidate cares about any of those issues and will make the changes happen?

[NattPang]

23. Barack Obama is not talking lobbyist and corporate money.

so he's making changes before he even gets into the office.

[GihrenZabi]

25. I agree

...but this and not running a classic, negative campaign seem to be all the changes he's willing to discuss right now. Most of his positions right now are a return to the pre-Neo Con American status quo, which isn't "change" to me.

"Change" can't be "putting things back the way they were" because you didn't actually change anything. You gave us something we already had before.

"Change" would be giving us something entirely unique and original. FDR gave us "change." Lincoln gave us "change."

[NattPang]

28. He speaks of many changes,

to Education, the tax code,
our mindset on war,
and the fact that he is different
from any other of our President
is a change on its own that he is not replicating.
He also plans on televising his discussion of bills
on C-Span.

[GihrenZabi]

39. But what do YOU consider change?

And what changes do you think will actually take place?

I'm asking for a little contemplation of reality here.

[elkston]

30. Obama works within the system to CHANGE the system.

He wades carefully and does not engage in dramatic upheavals. He knows that he must work with both sides and understand their concerns and then slowly, incrementally, work towards large scale changes.

It will take more than 1 term to get things going. But the seed will be planted and a new kind of politics will be born.

OK, this is all generic talk, but I really beleive he wants to do this. Sometimes you must peer into a man's soul. What else other than an authentic desire for reform, could drive his urgent run for the White House (yes, he really could have waited).

[GihrenZabi]

40. Elaborate

How would you describe "a new kind of politics," then?

Abandon the buzz words and catch phrases. Be specific.

[DangerDave921]

94. Where did you get that idea?

He has sworn off taking money from FEDERAL lobbyists, but he has accepted money from law firms that do lobbying and from corporations and from state lobbyists. He's a politician. He has to raise huge amounts of money.

[DailyGrind51]

13. If McCain DOES get elected,

it will mean his Depends!:D

[elkston]

19. Just to be clear ...

Your tepid feelings about this election would remain even if Hillary Clinton was the nominee as well, right?

This isn't just an Obama thing, its a Washington thing, right?

You're always coming up with these protest threads casting doubt on Obama's intentions and methods.

[GihrenZabi]

24. LOL!

My tepid feelings on this election would remain even if Jesus Christ and Buddha were the candidates.

What I am trying to get at is that many people on this forum are supporting Obama and they don't know why other than he's the Democratic nominee, and that's enough for them. These are also often the same people who get their panties in a bunch whenever someone criticizes Obama.

This is precisely the sort of thing that causes democracies to fail, and I like to shed light on it. If you cannot elucidate why, precisely, you are supporting a candidate then it stands to reason that you should question why you support them at all.

If more people did, third parties might be viable. If the votes existed for alternative parties then people with the resources to create them might develop the moxie to do so.

As it stands, Democrats vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for Republicans and neither side's majority of members seem to be able to specify WHY, precisely, they vote with one party or another. Usually it comes down to single-issue voting. Other times it's just swallowing buzzwords and bullshit whole.

I am always curious as to the reasoning behind why anyone does anything. I know why I supported Obama in the primary, and I know why I'm quickly losing interest in him now. I also think he's going to win handily - McCain doesn't stand a chance - which makes criticism of Obama feel very "safe" for lack of a better word, not that what we do here on DU makes a difference in the real world (and won't until a majority of the country's voters are here and participating in the conversation).

[SidneyCarton]

27. You bring up an excellent point Gihren, What exactly are we hoping for?

I do not see Obama as an angry messiah driving the moneylenders from the temple of democracy with a cat o' nine tails. What I honestly see as change, more than anything else is a reinstitution of regulation in matters economic, the appointment of competent and skilled individuals to head the governmental departments, instead of rob them blind and liquidate their assets, and a shift toward engagement and away from belligerence in our foreign policy. This would be a change.

[GihrenZabi]

41. Hmm

I might describe all that as "a return to the way things once were," rather than a proper "change."

Not that any of that is bad, mind you, but that seems to be setting the bar rather low...it's realistic, however, in terms of what may actually happen.

I don't know about the "competent and skilled individuals," however. Most of the people with real skills go corporate to cash in. Civic values are fairly absent from American society en masse nowadays.

[SidneyCarton]

53. We've gone down a cul-de-sack, we'l have to back up if we want to go anywhere.

As to the competent and skilled individuals, I realize we will probably not get the best and the brightest (a pity, for it says much of our future as a nation) for greed tends to beat out patriotism or idealism these days. I will settle for people who can tell their ass from a hot rock, unlike Brownie, Gonzalez, The current head of DHS (whose name escapes me at the moment) et. al.

[Marrah_G]

31. I have no idea what it means

No one has explained exactly what those changes are supposed to be.

[NattPang]

35. Obama's platform for change is everywhere,

and mentioned as responses throughout this thread.
You just have chosen not to find out what the changes might be,
even if they are staring you in the face.

Encouragement of bottom up grassroot involvement with government: Obama Announce Launch of Website to Track Federal Spending - www.USAspending.gov

Obama in utilizing technology in politics: Obama pitches youth, technology at Google, SF events
http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2007/11/15/chronicle/archive/2007/11/15/MN5BTCBP4.html
and promises to broacast the negotiation of bill on CSPAN.
Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. http://freegovinfo.info/node/1598


Obama and the media and change: Moves to Block FCC Media-Ownership Vote
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6498856.html

Obama turns down Public Financing, and is the first to have ever done so: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Obama and lobbyist money: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html

Obama's tax fairness plan - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/the-missing-cla.html
Listen now: http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream4

Obama's new Doctrine - Foreign policy vision: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine

Obama's 50 states strategy and unprecedented registration drive: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/obama-voter-registration_n_101108.html

BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE -
Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a “contracts and influence” database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

Bring Americans Back into their Government

Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies.

Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch these debates in person or on the Internet.

Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf:

[GihrenZabi]

44. Again...

...that's what Obama says.

What do YOU think "change" means, and which changes do you expect will actually happen?

Let's say that your laundry-listing substitutes for your thinking about what change means to you, for the moment. We'll strike items which have already taken place, and look to his proposals for future action.

Which items on that laundry list do you actually expect to take place in four years?

[NattPang]

49. No, a lot Obama has "done", not simply said.

Open government with minimized Lobbyist intrusion
and open conversations with the electorate
is a nice place to start.

I expect this to happen.

[GihrenZabi]

55. So, no specific policies?

I'm just curious.

[TwixVoy]

32. I believe a lot of people on this forum

are either in college 18-25 range, or are not old enough to have lived through enough presidents. Probably in the 25-35 range.

Anyone who has live 60 years would know by now change in washington won't be happening through process of another regular election.

[World Citizen]

34. Having the Justice Dept. obey the law...

would be a change and a big step forward.

[GihrenZabi]

46. Agreed

But what do you think will actually take place in terms of how the Justice Dept. operates?

Do you forsee any legislation to permanently change the Justice Department to prevent future abuses, or will it continue to be a matter of who happens to be in the driver's seat in the Oval Office at the time?

I.E., do you forsee systemic change, or just a change in the marching orders for four years?

[World Citizen]

48. initially it will be "driver seat" morality restoration

that influences. After investigations reveal the scope of law breaking, lesgislation will start to come in to play.

[paulk]

42. it's just a slogan

trotted out every four years by some politician or another.

And every four years people fall for it...

[NattPang]

50. I disagree with your cynical view.

Because I have seen more change
eminating from Barack Obama
not even being President,
than I had from any other candidate,
prior to them becoming President,
and that includes Bill Clinton,
who talked about Hope a lot,
but not so much change.

I'm guessing strictly on the transparency of your tone,
that much of your cynicism
comes from having supported Hillary Clinton
during the primaries.

[emilyg]

51. Some specific examples, please.

[GihrenZabi]

56. Searchy is your friend

*rolls eyes*

Does DU not support searches by poster on this site at all?

If it does, go do some cursory research. I was an Obama supporter in the primary. Hardcore.

[paulk]

74. my cynicism comes from being over fifty

and having seen this before.

Especially the wide eyed naivite that such candidates evoke from people like you.

[TexasObserver]

52. 1 start thread offensive to Obama 2 argue with all who respond 3 repeat

^^^^Your recipe for your flamebait campaigns.

No matter what anyone tells you, the response won't do, because your INTENT is merely to offend and antagonize. Don't you grow weary of hating Obama?

[DaDooRonRon]

54. Don't you grow weary of defending him?

The OP merely asked for a definition of "change."

You've not been able to provide it, so you (sadly) resort to cheap attacks and play the poor pitiful victim until it hurts.

If the idea of a discussion board is to discuss, the OP is doing just that.

If, on the other hand, this is to be a cheer-leading convention, then perhaps he and I and many others who have legitimate questions and who raise valid discussion points have stumbled into the wrong place.

I'm not big on blind allegiance.

You?

[cliffordu]

57. I suppose it's nice to have friends.

[TexasObserver]

92. I've got friends in low places

[World Citizen]

72. simple question

Do you believe that if Obama is elected, that all bush policies will continue just the same as they are now?

OK I will make an assumption and answer for you.... NO

Now, look to yourself to comprehend why you would answer no. BINGO! therein you will find the CHANGE that YOU expect.

[DaDooRonRon]

76. Simple answers

Do I think the idiotic "war on terra" will end?

No, the bodies will be shifted to Afghanistan, where yet another country will attempt to defend an illegal invasion.

Do I think the nation will finally get universal single payer health coverage?

No, the blather will be about making health care "affordable", as of someone who has just lost his/her job can find any type of coverage affordable.

Will the Palestinians ever be recognized as sovereign people?

No, AIPAC will still set middle-east policy.


THOSE would be changes - putting different people on the FCC or pulling some bullshit tax gimmicks are not.

What we'll get are a pretty little set of "progressive" curtains to hide what really happens inside the room.

It seems many here are content with just that.

Someday someone is gonna get the fact that Republicans push the envelope, knowing that eventually they'll get booted out and replaced by Democrats who do nothing except keep the seat warm (but who have a great PR firm that can convince a lot of folks that they really are "changing" everything).

Then the Repubs come in and push it farther, starting from where they left off. You see, they NEVER have to go backwards - they can rely on the Democrats to hold the line for them.

It's one big Purple love-in, and to quote the great Steve Goodman "the winner's always somebody else and the loser is always us."

[GihrenZabi]

79. I look at it this way...

The Republicans come in and fuck it up in the name of greed, and then the Dems come in and do a repair job but don't actually try to improve anything because they profit just as much by the established order as the Republicans do.

It won't be until we somehow get elected officials into office who aren't served by the established order that we'll see real "change" in Washington.

[DaDooRonRon]

82. You look at it correctly

It's Corporate Red and Corporate Blue, which when mixed together yields purple.

"Change" will only come about when both parties no longer feel they have a monopoly on voters, and since they themselves will do nothing to kill the golden goose it is up to us as voters to reject them.

Many here are petrified of what will happen in the short term if they do so, but that is precisely the fear that both parties want them to have. Do not for an instance think that Bush has the market cornered on fear - a mere glance at this website will show you how well the Democrats have used this emotion to their advantage.

It drives many to the polls not to vote FOR someone, but rather to vote AGAINST someone that they are AFRAID of.

Interesting, ain't it?

[DangerDave921]

83. Yes indeed

Like it or not, Obama is not a new kind of candidate. He's a politician, not unlike many politicians before him. He has a massive ego to want to be president, he has handlers and advisors, he has to do fund-raising, he has to shift positions based on electability. Running for office is a performance.

All politicians (with very few exceptions) want power. That is their first goal. Once they are elected, they work to keep power. They want money, they want influence, they want power. Dems want it too, depsite all the feel-good talk about change and the people and the children.

Our federal government is so entrenched that it will not change with one man, no matter how noble his goals. It just can't be done. Maybe he can move the ball a little farther down the field, but that's it.

I get the feeling a lot of folks are expecting some kind of miracle when Obama gets elected, like wars will end, homelessness will end, unemployment will end. Look, we're going to have the same damn problems that have been confronting us for years. All I'm asking for is some realism in our assessment of the situation. Not rah-rah cheerleading.

[Youphemism]

61. I'm skeptical that you're sincere with this question, but...

...I suggest you just review his policies and history. But here are a couple of quick notes that I think he's made very clear:

When he talks about change, he's usually referring to changing the way politics in Washington work. His track record on this is pretty good: He has advocated transparency in several different forms with legislation he's sponsored/introduced. He's already spoken out against lobbyists and special interests, as well.

He's also spoken out against Bush's "politics as usual" decisionmaking -- specifically, beginning with a premise, such as going to war, and gathering facts to support it. Giving countries we don't like the "silent treatment," but negotiating with and providing favors for countries just as evil, but who have something we want.

Those are a few examples of changes in approach. There are many policy change examples on his web site, so I won't bother pointing those out to you.

[GihrenZabi]

65. Most sincere

This question, for me, is about two things:

1) Understanding your personal motivations for supporting a candidate
2) Setting realistic expectations

"Changes in approach" aren't really what I would call "substantive changes." "The way politics in Washington" work is too broad a statement to have any real meaning. You can advocate transparency, but if you can't make it actually happen and have practical proposals for doing so, it's just an ideology which is pretty meaningless. You can speak out against lobbyists and special interests and choose not to saddle yourself with them, personally, but unless you're willing to try and apply those strictures to everyone else via law then again this is ideology and pretty meaningless in terms of making any changes to the system.

In terms of foreign policy, again that's an ideological bent, and not even a new one - but it doesn't say anything about specific policy. What will he do about Darfur? How does he intend to redeploy the American military? How does he feel about the U.N. and to what degree is he willing to submit the United States to its authority in matters such as international criminal trials of American military personnel? These would be concrete policies he could enact, and would therefore be fodder for discussion of "change."

Approaches are good, but they're not what I was asking about, to be fair; but take this and run with it. What specific policy changes might you expect to be pursued as a result of these changes in approach, and which of those policies do you think will actually become entombed in law and regulations?

[Youphemism]

70. I'm now even more skeptical...

You're just treating responders like clay pigeons, getting them launched to shoot them down.

> You can advocate transparency, but if you can't make it actually happen
> and have practical proposals for doing so, it's just an ideology which
> is pretty meaningless.

Obama has already gotten transparency legislation passed, so it is not ideology, nor is it meaningless. He's done it at both the state and the Federal level. Do your homework and look it up.

In terms of policy, he's got a great education plan, some good criminal justice reforms, a unique and reciprocal civil service plan, and an energy plan -- that one could use some fleshing out. There were about 24 of these papers posted the last time I visited. I've made it through most of them, but there are still a few I haven't gotten to yet.

Go read for yourself. His policy papers are very clear and specific.

Then you can come back here and complain. That would be much more efficient.

[GihrenZabi]

75. Again...

What do YOU consider change, and what do YOU think will actually happen?

For the purposes of this question, what Obama says is irrelevant. Aren't I asking for YOUR opinions?

Is it so hard just to try and think about what you think he might actually get done and talk about it?
You don't need to be right...and no one's going to hold your feet to the fire if you turn out to be wrong...

I just want to know what peoples' ideas and expectations are...they're pretty simple questions...

[Youphemism]

81. And my expectation is that he'll promote that agenda I just described. Simple answer.

How much of it he gets done largely depends on how well the Dems do in this election, how many world and national issues pop up in the meantime, etc.

But I expect he'll do a lot of what he says -- get teachers better salaries, repeal the Bush tax cuts, start bringing the troops back from Iraq and shifting some of them over to Afghanistan, close the Enron loophole, divert more money to energy research, get a college tuition credit/civil service bill passed... I think most of those things are doable in the first term. They're also in those policy docs you're refusing to read.

The wildcard is that there is almost certain to be some trouble in the first year we pull out of Iraq -- and that would be the same whether we did it this year or in five years. The power vacuum sets them up for either a large or small civil war, once we pull out troops and stop paying them not to kill each other.

You seem to want to *think* that peoples have the blank slate image of Obama, and you're doing a lot to discount what they say.

But everything I've described here and more is in those policy pages you refuse to read. It's just a question of what percentage will be complete. And who really knows? Try answering your own questions.

[Clear Blue Sky]

62. People have different names.

Otherwise it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...

[Imagevision]

69. No more three day work weeks...?

[World Citizen]

71. did you see any of Obama's speech yesterday?

and Biden's responses?

Clear changes in foreign policy were explained. I expect those changes will be implemented. If you want to play word games and say that's not change but "going back to", I would say that it IS change from what we have NOW and THAT is much more important than semantical objections to sustain your argument. I would also say that there is NO possibility of "going back to" when it comes to foreign policy, since the world is so different from the days of Clinton.

Call me naive, I don't mind. I have been cynical since 1963 when they told me that the assassination of JFK had nothing to do with anyone seeking political power.

IF Obama is elected, the change I expect is that we will averting a major catastrophe. I think it's much more serious than playing word games and attempting to trip people who believe that the course we are currently on needs to be CHANGED.

I guess I feel that the threat to the world is much more serious than you do.

For me it's as if, there is a giant meteor heading for earth and we have only one device to divert it, but you want to argue that maybe we shouldn't use it because the company that built it hasn't given us an explanation of what kind of health care insurance they will give to their employees.

[GihrenZabi]

73. Speeches are speeches

Action is action. Bush said he'd be a uniter and a compassionate conservative in HIS speeches. We know how that turned out...

Those "changes" in foreign policy aren't really "changes." They're the way things are without a Neo-Con junta behind the wheel. Typical foreign policy. A "change" would be going into Darfur to end the genocide; we don't normally engage in unilateral, morally-informed action of that nature. A "change" would be pulling all the troops out of Europe to save money and increase our resources for the war in Afghanistan.

I see what you're saying - I've tried to clarify my view of "change" as "a significant depature from any established way of doing things," which is what Obama means when he says "Change" in his campaign.

You do sound like more of a conspiracy theorist/alarmist, no offense, and it's impossible to have a rational conversation on what we may expect to happen from that point of view, but you're entitled to it, of course.

While I may agree that we're on a precipice, I think that it's a long, long way down and I don't fear the bottom. Real change is almost always preceded by pain and disaster - which is also an opportunity. When the established order gets shaken up, that's a real opportunity to put something different back together.

While I hope the birth pangs of a new America aren't TOO painful, I have faith that people of influence and conscience will seize the reigns and take control when the chips are down and the established order finally is brought to light as completely unequipped to deal with the problems of 21st century Earth.

If anything, I recognize the historical *necessity* of this cycle and therefore do not fear it.

[NYC_SKP]

77. Taking a longer view, understanding how policy decisions now will impact

generations of the future; sustainability.

[depakid]

78. The only thing I expect is to see is reasonable competency at the federal agencies

In other words, a return to the status quo of the 1990's.

Other than that- no change whatsoever on how things are done or on the sorts of legislation that gets proposed. The Dem leadership in Congress have shown what they're all about (as they did all the years that they were in the majority).

Cats don't up and change their stripes. They didn't when they regained control of Congress (much to the disappointment of many) and they won't if Obama manages to win the presidency, either.

[H2O Man]

80. socks

[Writer]

84. Change means something must explode.

:nuke:

[FredfromSpace]

86. These days it seems to mean resurrecting ghouls like Sam Nunn...

Just what we need, an old DLC homophobe, the architect of "don't ask, don't tell," to help us on the path to "hope."

[katty]

89. heard the "change" mantra so many times before-not new

no one can predict what a candidate will 'actually' do or be able to do.

[Kokonoe]

90. It means changing the direction of our future.

Something a few republicans might not agree with.

[HughBeaumont]

95. What do I consider change?

Taking this phrase:

"What the Wealthy WANT, The Wealthy WILL GET, No Matter WHAT the Cost to Everything and Anyone Else."

and doing the exact opposite, starting from day ONE.

Nearly every problem in this country today stems from that methodology. War. The sorry state of the economy. Scandal. Questionable to downright phony elections. A deteriorating infrastructure. A national debt that is bankrupting this country beyond it's ability to pay. Conglomerated Media. Unbridled corporatism. For the past 30 years, we've been so hellbent on pleasing ONE group of people, and it's these people that need the least pleasing out of all of us.

Do I think it's going to happen? NO. Corporations run this country, not politicians.

Corporations are too powerful, too far reaching, too much in control of our lives.

The people's opinions don't mean shit. The people aren't ever going to rise up and storm the White House and organize sit-ins and frog march our leaders outta there like they should be doing. They're too much in debt to and in fear of their jobs and their bills to care. But even if they get past that layer of "security"; there are the police (who hate dissenters) and Blackwater USA (the mercenary army of the "betters") to try and get past.

You could have all 200 million people in this country miraculously form a giant army to hunt down and arrest the wealthy CEO and politician assholes that are legally ruining this nation for everyone except themselves. But then the world's economy would be thrown in upheaval.

It's all a dream.

Just sit back and take it like a champ. Life sucks. Deal with it. They bought everything. Your politicians, your congresspeople, your fellow citizens, everyone. Even you.

In case you haven't guessed, I'm pretty much just telling you what you and most Obama pessimists want to hear. People all over this thread have given you example after example of how things will change once he's in office, and you just crap all over it.

The exact opposite of what we're doing now will be fine by me, for starters. All it takes is to say "no" to a hell of a lot of corporate lobbyist cash and watch your back.

[GihrenZabi]

96. Actually...

Pretty much no one has told anyone how things will change once Obama is in office, because things won't change.

My point is made. :)