Analysis of Change

The race as of this date is still on. Obama was not able to administer the knockout blow to Clinton in the New Hampshire Primary. Nor were the Republicans able to sort out their dysfunctional differences, as John McCain won on the Republican side of the ticket While these people are running for the same office the differences between the major parties is huge.

The buzz word on the campaign trail is change. Every Candidate has been urged by their handlers to incorporate their two cents worth on the matter of change. The question is change from what. Obama and Edwards talk about changing the way we do business in Washington. Ultra partisan politics and the gridlock and stagnation it causes has exasperated the public, regardless of party or political tendency.

Bush, with the total cooperation of the Republican majority spent this country into a corner, started an war that is costly not only in money but its tax on our countries spirit and moral and he has squandered our reputation worldwide because of his lack of vision and management skills. This failed philosophy of preemptive war and supply side economics is what people want changed. How do we change that?

Some would say, vote out the Republicans. That might be a good idea and it certainly helps the Democrats in that some people are going to vote that way as they did in the midterm election in 2006. But what have the Democrats done with their majority? As it turns out, dammed little! It's clear that with a change in the White House and assembling a coalition of centrist or progressives,as they want to be called now, Democrats and moderate Republicans would help to start to straighten out this mess. Who is best sited to do this?

In the Republican Party there is only one obvious candidate, John McCain. McCain's problem is simple. He'll have a chance at winning because he is popular with independents, palatable to some Democrats and moderate Republicans, but he has to get his parties nomination. This is a huge problem since McCain has been a maverick in his own party for years. The far right wing does not trust him, the evangelicals don't like him and the Bush people hate him. You can make a case that given the low quality of the rest of the field that the party may hold it's nose and nominate him anyway, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on that happening.

The Democrats are suffering from an embarrassment of riches, to borrow the current cliche, with the Edwards, Obama, Clinton Troika on the Democratic side. Edwards is fully capable man who has forced the issue of middle class neglect and exploitation onto the agenda for two election cycles. He has enough of a constituency to be at the bargaining table and end up with some job in the new administration, regardless of which party wins, but I doubt he'll be the nominee of the party.

Reality set in after the Iowa. Hillary Clinton was so ready to be President that for a while early in this campaign she was assuming that she would be and started acting like the presumptive nominee. While she won in New Hampshire, she won in a three way race. What is interesting is that nobody is talking about what is going to happen when Edwards finally drops out. Where would those votes in New Hampshire have gone if Edwards is not on the ballot. Regardless, Clinton as the candidate is not your coalition candidate. You can argue that her husband did it with the opposition in control of the House and Senate, but we've sen Bill Clinton in action and Hillary is no Bill Clinton, regardless of her obvious qualifications. While it is true is that Hillary has more practical experience thanObama it is also true that she is far more polarizing. Obama is clearly the guy who has an involved and new constituency (See my comments about the Tiger Effect in my last blog). He can "reach across the aisle" and work with the opposition.

We need someone who can bring together the great political center of the society. Notice please, that the center of the electorate is not overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. It is the independent voter who shifts back and forth between parties. It is this constituent that the parties seek after they have received their party's nomination and than forget once the vote has been tallied. The independent voter who has no organization to fall back on, no lobbyist in Washington, they are the true victims of the system. This is the group that is crying out for change. And excuse me Mr. Rove, by serving this constituency a party can build a future of long term dominance of the political system, not by pandering to the fears and prejudices of the fringe.