What Change Means
February 26, 2008 by Dan Solis
Barack Obama believes change would be electing him President of the United States. Hillary Clinton believes change is making improvements in people’s lives for the better. For Obama, the election has been about himself. Clinton wants the election to be about the people she wants to help.
“I have a proven record of making change as a change maker,” she told a crowd in the gymnasium of Wayne High School in Huber Heights, Ohio. [The Swamp]
I believe this is a fundamental difference between these two candidates. It tells us who they are, and what they want to do. It shows that, for Obama, this election has been about a personal political ambition. And at the same time, for Clinton, this election is much more important than her own legacy. It’s really about the people who need help, not hope.
Almost every Obama supporter has an almost inappropriate fascination with the man. With stories of six people fainting at rallies, and supporters talking about how they “came” to Obama, or at a recent rally where Obama blew his nose, the crowd erupted in cheers. In fact, Obama supporters resemble sheep, more than they do supporters.
With revelations of plagiarism arising this past week, Obama supporters were unable to concede an inch. In their eyes, Obama can do no wrong. He can make no mistakes, or receive any criticism. A president unwilling to receive criticism will not learn from mistakes, will never discover that there is room for improvement, and will only become more out of tune with people who elected him.
I think Deval Patrick summed up the Obama campaign well:
“He has a broader range of life experience, which is, I think, enormously important because we don’t want just a chief policy wonk,” Patrick said. [Time.com]
We elect people in our democracy to do work for us. Since when did being a “policy wonk” turn into a bad thing? This is exactly how the Obama campaign managed to turn “experience” into a dirty word. The Obama campaign is only out to inspire us or fancy us with speeches and rhetoric. In this election, it’s clear we’ve strayed off of the course of finding real “change” and we’ve instead replaced it with a popularity contest, and letting our emotions get the best of us.
I don’t want this election to be about one person. And I know Obama supporters try to fool themselves by calling it a “movement.” But for Obama, the campaign is less about the movement of a people, it’s a movement about one person, and his self-righteousness. Obama needs more time to learn how to become a better president, one day. A more knowledgeable president can only help America. But the time for knowledge, experience, competence, and real policies, is now.
I believe we can all hold different views on who should be the Democratic nominee, but some of these statements are just dividing the Democratic party. I think we can discuss legislative accomplishments and experience without throwing around insults like “He’s running for himself.”
Currently the congress is in deadlock due to extremely partisan politics. Obama has shown he can get Dems and the GOP to work together when he pushed legislation threw the Illinois general assembly that required video taping of confessions for death row inmates.
Unless Democrats get a larger majority in the senate and house I doubt that Hilary will be able to get many of her proposals approved.
[Reply]
“I doubt that Hilary will be able to get many of her proposals approved.”
It’s funny how only Clinton supporters are accused of dividing the party. Doesn’t a division go two ways?
If you want to know why Obama is running, in 2004 he didn’t even think he could run, and he questioned himself. you can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU
And on a final note, I’d much rather have a competent president, than a spokesman.
[Reply]
Seems like Hillary Clinton agrees with me. Here’s a quote from her on the 700 Club today:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/327583.aspx
[Reply]
JFK was in the senate 2 years longer than Obama when he ran for president. JFK didn’t have even half the experience of other presidents, yet he got twice as much done as most of them. Turns out how good of a president you’ll be doesn’t depend on how long you’ve been in Washington.
[Reply]
I hear Obama supporters say, “experience doesn’t matter” and then say “obama has more experience than hillary, he has been in elected office longer.”
Jeff, make up your mind. Are you going to claim Obama has experience or that he doesn’t and it doesn’t matter?
[Reply]
He has experience. Experience isn’t everything.
[Reply]
Wow. You do know how ridiculous that sounds, don’t you? You’re telling me his “experience” doesn’t matter because it’s not important. You can’t play both cards at the same time. Either embrace his experience, or hope his unsubstantive rhetoric won’t fade by November.
[Reply]
A little defensive, aren’t you? Let me elaborate. He does in fact have experience. However, that experience is not all the matters in selecting a president. I’m not playing two cards, just stating that although he has experience, that’s not all that matters to be a great president.
[Reply]
Jeff, you can’t just get personal by saying I’m being “defensive.” please, when someone disagrees with you as an obama supporter, be more clear, or at least explain what you’re talking about.
[Reply]
Alright, not trying to get personal, Just saying that he has experience, but that experience needs to go hand in hand with judgment. I know what you’re saying, alot of the newer Obama supporters are like drones, but I’ve liked Obama since the candidacy began, I like his policy, I like his positions (and yes, a speech now and then doesn’t hurt). But the speeches aren’t everything. Just because he can give a speech doesn’t mean that he doesn’t hold long, policy filled town halls. I can appreciate if you like Hillary because you like her positions better, but to say he doesn’t have any positions is flat out wrong.
[Reply]
Good god, I am so tired of this debate between Clinton and Obama supporters. Where is the policy discussion? Do we just have to talk about celebrity and sensationalism and “change” and “experience” and all of that rubbish that the media brings up in order to make the election as controversial as possible?
Can’t we talk about policy for just a minute? Can’t we have a series here at Think Youth where various policy issues are discussed? We’ve already done a series about each of the individual Democratic Presidential candidates. Why not one on the issues that these candidates should be addressing? All I see is Clinton this and Obama that and Clinton said this and Obama said that and Obama has no experience and Clinton won’t bring change and Obama supporters are cultists and the Democratic Party is being divided and it’s a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party, and I’m rather tired of all of it.
Face it, Obama is going to be the nominee, which is unfortunate for me, because my loyalty for Mike Gravel has never disappeared, despite his extraordinary lack of success. Obama will be the nominee, and we will have to choose between the lesser of two evils, and go through this whole debate about change and experience again in the general election. I’m going to unplug my television for the next eight months or so.
And, really, what does change mean? When thinking about it, instead of using the word to promote your chosen presidential candidate, why not think about “change” on a deeper level? Can’t change be either good or bad? It’s just change, right? Change could mean moving from Florida to Siberia, or it could mean moving from Siberia to Florida. Think about it, Mr. Solis, think about the term “change” on a deeper level than just promoting Hillary Clinton for President.
[Reply]