The thing is, any administration of any stripe can be "change".
The thing is Obama is talking about change as an idea, Clinton is talking about it as processes. The really big difference in my view is presentation. I know a lot of Obama people will hate hearing this... and no doubt will disagree, but Obama and Clinton are virtually line-ball on most issues - I think Clinton will bring about change , so will Obama. Obama is making people believe in change as an ideal - essentially creating an appetite for his policies. Clinton is getting to that point straight away - which has hurt her with the public.
McCain as CHANGE?!?! The guy with the 90% support of the Bush program? He stood up to Bush on the "surge" and torture... and oh my didn't we hear all about it. He's recruited a lot of Bush 2000/2004 people. Where it really matters, not the issues the Reps bring up to distract people - because God knows Gay marriage is SO much more important than healthcare, he's more or less on pegging with Bush.
Actually, he did stick anti-torture riders onto quite a few bills a while back.
You know, perhaps you're comparing the guy with Bush because you're scared he might win...
I singled out the issues he's differentiated with Bush. McCain, for obvious reasons, has had the issues of torture in his leglislative past.
I'm comparing him to Bush because he's affixed himself so hard to the Bush agenda you'd need industrial strength solvent to remove him. Yes, McCain is the republican I fear most - but as I said, he's not untouchable as some would like to think - he's vulnerable.
