January 30th, 2008
02:07 PM ET

Why won't we vote to really change things?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The two apparent front-runners are now Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If nothing changes, this is the choice we will have for president of the United States.

Hillary is part of the monopoly on the White House between the Clintons and the Bushes that goes back 28 years. Her husband is a two-term president, she's a former first lady and current member of the Senate. She's a poster girl for the Washington establishment.

McCain has been a part of Washington for 26 years. A two-term congressman, he's been a senator since 1986. He's been running for president for the last eight years. Another Washington insider.

Ask anyone what they think of our government and most people will be happy to tell you. They are angry. I get thousands of letters a week from people angry about health care, immigration, the war, the economy, you name it. The consensus is our government is broken and our country is in trouble.

The problems they complain about exist solely because of the actions of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington. The political establishment, if you will, that is in bed with the lobbyists and the corporations and, quite frankly, couldn't care less about you.

Except now, at election time, when they need you. They travel the country spewing the same tired rhetoric we have heard for years. And like lemmings, we appear to be on the brink of continuing to send one of them to the White House. Somebody said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well?

Here’s my question to you: When it comes right down to it, why won't we vote to really change things?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Joe writes:
You can’t vote for change if none of your choices want it. Why should the parties give us anyone who wants to change Washington when changing things threatens the establishments (special interests) of the two political parties?

Dee from Texas writes:
We want change so long as it does not interrupt our regularly-scheduled program, raise our taxes, require too much effort or take too long. People vote for the establishment because it promises to take care of everything.

Sam writes:
Americans are voting to send corrupt, open-borders, establishment, favor-owing, slimy politicians who will say and do anything false to get elected because of a media that focuses on establishment candidates every four years. They are constantly looking for a story. Those candidates also are good at spinning the media off it's noggin. The media is in the tank for John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Luz from El Paso, Texas writes:

We are afraid of change. A woman president? She's ok to be my mother, lover, mother of my children, etc., but not to be president. A black man? Definitely not. Whether we like it or not, in the end whoever runs against the Republican will have to face these issues. We are so closed-minded that we would rather have a dog run the presidency than a woman or an African-American. Society makes us fear everything and it is time that we elect a woman or a black man, let's get insubordinate here.

Vince from Carson City, Nevada writes:

Probably because only the comfortable generally tend to vote; the poor generally don't bother because somehow they know that if voting really made a difference it would be illegal.

Karen writes:

Why don't we vote to change things? Because change is difficult, messy, painful and requires us not only to step out of our comfort zones, but to get involved. And we don't want the bother, to be honest.

Filed under: General Election
soundoff (296 Responses)
  1. Alex Smith

    I believe that people want the illuision of change. Tehy want to be able and say this that we have right now isn't working. That is change, but most people are scared of change. You never know if it is going to work out right or not. But there is one thing that is constent in life- CHANGE. Who ever you vote for will be change, it is the policies and the experience of that person to have the ability to right wrongs. That is what should be at the for front righting the wrongs, Go Hillary.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  2. Joan

    By nature, people rather have the devil they know than the devil they don't. Change can be scary so we go along repeating the same mistakes by voting for the known. Congress has a high negative but if you ask a person about their senator or rep, they usually say they like him or her and they keep voting the individual back in office.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  3. Ed Reed

    I think voters do vote to change things; however, the need for campaign contributions, special interests, politicians turned lobbyists, poltical parties, re-districting, and Senate rules conspire to resist meaningful change. That would threaten their livlihoods. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" could only happen in the movies, never in real life.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  4. David of Natchez

    Don't be so quick to write off Obama. I had no intention of voteing for him until the other canidates started dropping out. We do want change, the question is will Washington let us get away with it.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  5. Rich Uckmann

    I feel that change for change's sake is fool hardy. I also believe that there is plenty of room for change in Washington. How to achieve that change is the real question. The process begins with the voters. We must try to look beyond the labels that are either chosen by the candidates or foisted upon them by various interest groups, foremost in my opinion, is the media. We must then try to sort out the truth from the half truths and lies. Hopefully, we will then make an informed decision when we vote.
    Yes Jack, we do want change but not necessarily the change you appear to want by the framing of your question.
    What's the old expression, throwing the baby out with the bath water. I might apply your question to "talking heads" like you and Wolf . I might, if I had the vote, throw you out because you have been part of the news scene for tooo long.
    Experience is a valuable and often elusive quality. Unlike Teddy Kennedy who feels some might have it now!! I feel it is acquired with time and as a result of life's expeiences.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  6. William

    Maybe because change scares most people. They would rather stay with the status quo rather then try something else for fear it might be worse.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  7. Alan

    Think about what you just asked. Big money funds the campaign, which hires consultants to find those hot button issues. One of those is usually "change". So they package it in a short form that best suits their target audience, playing it over and over. People think they're voting for change. Yet once elected, candidates shed their promises like a used condom, which is exactly what we're left with. No, it wasn't good for me.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  8. Lou

    I believe that the people have spoken for change. The only one that has given us any chance for change is Obama. I'm not sure if he will fulfill his promises,does any politician, but he is so far, not deeply tainted by the Washington establishment and the lobbyist. If it comes to a race between McCain and Clinton, McCain would win but between McCain and Obama. It will be Obama. Yea, and I'm a conservative.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  9. Eugene in NorCal

    Jack, After decades, of pandering legislators, apathy runs deep, in our country. American's won't vote, to really change a damn thing, until our last good jobs are outsourced and Corporate U.S.A. has reduced our standard of living, to that of a third world country. The time to clean house is way over due but there's no one, to vote for. We need a viable independent candidate, such as Lou Dobbs, to jump, in the race, then the stuff will strike the whirling blades.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  10. Jarrett

    Maybe it's my age, but I've heard this "change" thing enough times during previous campaigns that I can't take it seriously. Particularly when it lacks specifics, like in the Obama campaign.

    Republican obstructionist tactics have had a devastating impact on middle class and poor Americans. If Obama's plan is to reach across the isle and bring these same Republicans into the White House, then we're looking at some grand compromising on important democratic principles .... and that kind of "change" we don't need. Americans cannot afford mediocre legislation for the sole purpose of singing Kum-By-Yah on the Senate floor.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  11. Chauncey J. Linn

    Change requires political courage and that is no longer something Americans have. Our current crop of leaders do not match any of our founding fathers and we do need that kind of leadership today. We would have to stop voting for both parties and encourage independents to become much more involved. Will that happen? Probably not; we are just too tied to the two party, corrupt system to break out of their grasp. We may be watching the beginning of the end of our country. We should all reexamine the words of George Washington to see if his ideals match what we have become.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  12. Chris

    Jack, We need change as a informed voter I will start the change. From Republican to Democrat (Thank You, Florida) If you think that a liberal is the best choice for the highest elected office in our nation ( One that I have shed my blood for for the past twelve years) than I will do the same and vote for the candidate one who seems to be wanting to bring both sides together. Change ! Yes we Can. Yes I Will.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  13. chuck

    Jack this is the same drivel that talking heads say over and over again and then wonder why people are so hostile to their own government. People like McCain and Clinton have devoted their lives to serving this country in the best way they know how. You may not like them, because they know that you can't wave a magic wand and change the world and they are honest enough to not claim that they can. They are honest enough to admit that there are competing interests in Washington and that there are winners and losers in every policy debate.

    You sound like what you want is someone to lie to you and make you feel better, at least for a while.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  14. Sharon

    Mr. Jack,
    All in all I believe our government is the best in the world....that being said, even though President Bush has screwed up royally, we as Americans have great faith in the establishment, especially during such bad times. If we were not at war, if our economy was not crumbling beneath us, if we were reveared in the world as we used to be, we could stomach "CHANGE". But because we face such complicated and stressful times, we do put a lot of trust in those who have been through the ringer in Washington and those who have lasted through the muck....those two being Hillary Clinton and John McCain.....
    Jack, I dare you to use this on the air 🙂

    January 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  15. Jeri

    We will/would, Congress won't, they're bought, Jack! MONEY!

    January 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  16. Scott

    change is in the eye of the beholden.
    and the beholden is blind.

    bowling green, mo.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  17. Karen

    No. They prefer to snipe over Presidential candidates. The majority of the people are too lazy to get off their backsides and contact their representatives. The representatives will continue to ignore the wishes of the people that do contact them. The merry-go-round continues.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  18. Brett Milam

    I don't know Jack and it is unfortunate. Americans continue to say "we want change" every election cycle and then continue electing the opposite of change. They keep towing the status quo. Even with Mr. Change himself Obama, it really isn't a change. He is backed by big money lobbyist just like Clinton.


    January 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  19. W B in Las Vegas

    I think it's because that old people like myself are really afraid of change esp in programs like social security and medicare while the young seem to be more interested in "American Idol" and what's happening to Brittany Spears.

    every two years it "throw the rascals out but not MY rascal because he got us a nice fat pork project for the state or district". that's why you have "professional politicians" like Senators Byrd, Kennedy, and Stevens that have been in office forever.

    the ONLY way things will ever REALLY change is IF we were to inact TERM LIMITS for the House and Senate like there is for the Presidency but THAT'S never going to happen because these intrenched politicians would NEVER derail their own gravy train.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  20. Gary from Las Vegas

    I think that the problem is too many people put too much weight on the so called experience factor. Many of the great leaders of the past did not have experience when they went into office. George Washington was a general not a politician. Abraham Lincoln did not have any experience that would have prepared him to deal with a Civil War. We need more statesmen who can solve problems and get stuff done and less Washington career politicians who spend all of their time bickering about the other party and selling out to the special interests.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  21. Mihir Shah

    Jack, You should know the answer to this question. No one can change Washington. Its always Washington changing people. Bush, Clinton all wanted to change Washington. Look what happened?

    January 30, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  22. tco

    Many of us try to vote for a change from the entrenched bureaucracy, but money and power talks and controls. Both parties are loaded with "sheeple" blinded by party loyalty. They'll believe whatever they're told and do as they are told. Life's easier that way, especially for sheeple. For the rest of us, we continue to buck the system while we down antacids to stomach the idiots holding power over us all.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  23. John Y Des Plaines, IL

    YES let's change direction and now! Obama/Edwards 2008 sounds like a huge step forward. Imagine that W, forward! We demand people who represent the will of the people not their own personal views, or worse yet, those of their corporate backers.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  24. Terry

    Everyone wants to stay in their so called comfort zone and are reluctant to change. Most of the canidates are campaigning for change but have not outlined their game plan for this change. We have heard all this before and nothing has changed.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  25. Tom A

    A McCain-Clinton race makes for a very difficult choice for independent voters. I would say that most, if not all independents will not vote for Clinton. Independents don't share the same sycophantic fanaticism as those who worship the Clintons. Unfortunately, that leaves the only other choice who is pro-war. A war that is not supported by the majority of Americans. A war that is a money pit.

    We truly need a viable third party candidate in this election. Al Gore, are you listening?

    January 30, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  26. James Coley

    I think what we are seeing is that the older generations (40+) aren't prepared for change. The votes suggest that experience really is more important than change. Experience does lend itself as more secure. Then again, the vote might represent a racial divide that has existed for quite some time.

    At the same time, I think people are also leery of Obama's change campaign since he has been caught up in his own political drama (i.e. Slumlords and Snubbing). I was rooting for Obama pretty strongly because of his freshness and commitment to revamp everything that seems so dirty in Washington. Now that he seems susceptible to get just as dirty as the rest of them, he might be losing his edge. By the way, his message is losing it with me. It was great as in introduction, but I've heard a bit too much of what I deem his "motivational speeches." I hope he starts integrating his plans for actually making that change in a more specific manner. That'd make me more confident in his ability to become president. For now, I think McCain seems a pretty good candidate.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  27. Doug Pierson

    People are ambivalent about change. On one hand they are tired of the same old thing. On the other change is scary. At least the same old Hillary is familiar. Bill is familiar. Besides the economy was good under Clinton. With Obama trying to bring change it might mean that you don't have as much money in your pocket. Really, the same old politics are the politics of greed. I want mine, and yours too if I can get it. With Obama you get the picture that he is bringing in a altruistic framework. We all know what will happen then. Why taxes will go up.
    With Hillary Bill and McCain being such good friends and Bill being such good friends with George Bush Senior we will just get 4 or 8 more years of the same. Besides, I am relatively sure that McCain will beat Hillary. There are just too many people who hate the Clintons and the scandals. No, a good policy of greed is what we really need. Oh and yes, we can continue to fight in Iraq, What joy! You don't really think that Clinton is going to get us out do you. That would be too much like change.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  28. Bill from Tennessee


    When was the last time voters actually voted for Change? Remember the congressional elections of 1994? Need I say more.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  29. Jane from Philly

    Because deep down most of America is afraid to make real change in Washington. Sure, we'll turn over control of Congress from the useless Republicans to the useless Democrats. But what really changes, nothing. If we, as Americans wanted real change in how the government is run, we would have the two parties plus Independents, Green Party candidates and other groups represented in Congress. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are the establishment, everyone knows that and all of the American drones go to the poles and vote that way. It's unfortunate that even today, in the 21st century, Amercia remains stuck on the same, tired rhetoric of the "establishment" candidates.

    For me, I'm supporting Barack Obama as he sees America as it should be with all of the hope and promise its founding fathers knew was there. All we have to do is wake up, take a long hard look at what's really going on in the US. Acknowledge that America has problems and we really need to fix them. Only when that happens will Americans vote for real change.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  30. Allan

    I think Hillary Clinton would be he best chance for change. Bill Clinton's administration brought us change. I think the pair working together would make that change. What is there about prosperity that all the right wingers don't like. We had that with Bill Clinton as much as the right wing tried to prevent it with all their investigations that they held . The only thing they could get him for was lying about sex, that would get everybody in Washington.
    McLain would have us in a continual war, just what we have now.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  31. Theresa

    People won't vote for change because they depend on the corporate media to spoon feed them their choices and even though John Edwards won most of the debates, the media took no notice because he wasn't the flavor of the week. Our election process has become about as worthless as American Idol, and our presidents as lacking in talent and substance.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  32. Prince Noel

    hey jack , Dont be quick to pronouce hillary front runner, and when it boils down to change. edwards said two people can make it happen . Him edward and obama, now he drops out , dont you think its only one agentof change remaining.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  33. Terry

    Its not that we don't vote for change. People's votes don't matter. Clinton and McCain have been running for president for years. They have everything locked up from the inside, money, important people, etc. Challengers start off with an automatic disadvantage. It is amazing that Obama has gone so far with the odds stacked against him. You can see that Romney, an outsider, is having an extremely hard time, even with his milllions. Its those Washington insiders who will determine the next president.

    January 30, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  34. Judith

    In the words of the "poster girl for Washington establishment", 'having the first female president IS change'!

    January 30, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  35. ben

    Change only comes when you dare to dream or the situation is so terrible that you have no choice but to change. Some see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not.


    January 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  36. Greg Harris ( Clearwater, Florida)

    Being willing to want change means that you are willing to recognize that our political system is bascially broken. Too many people rely on those 30 second sound bites to make their choice on election day rather than take the time and energy to research a candidate's record and stand on the issues. They worry about what a candidate can do for their individual district instead of what's good for the country as a whole. Most individuals will rant on and on about changing our government but once in the voting booth, they end up selecting the same tired officials that got us into the mess we are in now. Until the fat cat K Street crowd is run out of Washington, we will never have true change. Money talks, Jack-–and until we finally remove corporate money from the election process, we will simply have more of the same. What you are smelling is the stench from Washington and we all need a gas mask to survive.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  37. Joan Smith

    Change is something that lerks around corners and under beds. People like change if it is good and hate it if it's bad. The road flows both ways, change is scary. I believe if you take a person that knows whats going on in America, that has experince of the past, then you are changing. People look to much into speeches and who makes them feel good right now. Its not about feeling good right now but feeling good 2-3 years from now. To Believe is to achieve but the leadership of experience is always in the front. Go Hillary.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  38. Chris/Calif.

    Jack, I think people are afraid of change because they don't have a clue what real change is. We haven't had real change in government since the death of JFK. Most people under 50 never experienced the "magic" of the Kennedy era. Obama represents that kind of change but people are scared, can't blame them, seven years of Bush is enough to scare the best. Remember the old adage "a turtle never gets anywhere without sticking his neck out." Let's hope that todays great young people can help us turn the tide.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  39. Pete, Fla.

    We will all vote to change things, Jack. The last name "Bush" is not on any of the ballots, and that may be the biggest and best change of all.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  40. RJ

    The desire for some measure of change is the fundamental reason why people vote. Whether it is a vote to re-elect an incumbent to sustain change or a vote for a non-incumbent to introduce change, the “want for change” is what motivates people to vote on election day be it for Dog Catcher or President of the United States.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  41. Cody Weber

    The US is like a burning bridge... We know that at some point we are going to have to jump and fix things, but no one seems to want to do it. We need change but we are in need of fundamental change. The call for reasonable candidates like Ron Paul are only going to get stronger. Hopefully we jump before its too late.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  42. Fran

    When it comes right down to it, why won’t we vote to really change things?

    To many people, real change appears to be the right thing to vote for...except if it effects them!! And that fear is why every election year the status quo continues!!


    January 30, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  43. W B in Las Vegas

    I will book that Theresa's comment gets read on the air tonight.

    "Our election process has become as worthless as American Idol, and our Presidents as lacking in talent and substance" just about says it all

    January 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  44. Paul

    Could it be that old habits are hard to break or that our choices are limited or that a ridiculous number of Americans don't even bother to vote? But whatever the reason is, it works great for those in power because that is where they will remain.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  45. Ralph

    Jack, voting for change is a good idea, but who has the clout to lead it through government? As much as the words of so many candidates sound promising, we still cannot look forward to a leader that will bind our country together.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  46. Frank Esper

    I think the fact that Obama is doing so well is a testimony to the desire for change. Remember that HIllary had to Flip/flop her whole campaign strategy from one of experience to one of change.

    HOnestly, everyone knows shes in bed with special interest groups. However I still dont understand why she retains support. Its almost as if people are afraid to NOT vote for her because of concerns of another republican president. If Obama doesnt get the democratic nomination, americans will have a hard choice between the lesser of 2 evils

    Frank Esper

    January 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  47. Mary

    I am beginning to believe true CHANGE will only come in this country when we are forced to leave our polling booth with a PURPLE FINGER showing. Right now there are too many voters that think they get change in Washington from talking about it – they forget that change is done by voting.

    Obama is the true changemaster in this campaign....now if only we had to show a PURPLE finger!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  48. MA

    I want change so much jack, If Obama doesn't get the nomination.
    I will not vote for anybody.


    January 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  49. Yayoi

    Some people won't vote for important issues because our democracy is hugely affected by the opinion polls and its bandwagon effect. There's a tendency to not to vote when they feel they are voting for a losing candidate even though they want to change things. This unconscious behavior suppresses the minority voice that actually have a chance of winning, but that "chance" is crushed by the opinion polls. I hope people will not care for the opinion polls and just vote for what's right for them. Also, it is a good idea to tell your friend how you are going to vote to fend off the bandwagon effect.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  50. William

    What change? The people do not elect the President, lobbyists and special interest groups do. That is why John Edwards is no longer in the race. Clinton is status quo and Obama can be controlled.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  51. George Wilson

    Because we are all creatures of habit. You know not making too drastic of a change might just be a good thing. Our government is like a house of cards, and when you make a hugh change most times the house will crumble. Case in point, look what has happened the last eight years when the Republicans came to Washington with one thing one their mind, and that was to dominate, do only things that helped only one group of American, and let the rest to fend for themselves. They did just that until 2006, now the worm has turned, and they can only blame themselves, and us who help put them in power.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  52. Chris Schurman

    Of course no one really wants change, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton; who's next, Jeb then Chelsea?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  53. Brenda

    We do want change and will vote Obama President......but the polling is behind the change in the tide.

    People want to restore pride and common sense to government......and have a government for the people and by the people. This is President Obama and Vice President Edwards.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  54. Will K

    The entire political system has been modified to keep change at bay.

    Want to vote early, the party strips your delegates because you tried to change things. Meanwhile a select few super delegates within the Democratic party have as much power as thousands of individual voters. What happened to one person, one vote?

    We are sending Americans to die every day in foreign countries so that they have representative democracies while turning a blind eye on how the two party system has corrupted our own.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  55. Jim Patterson

    The desired change is not being an insider or person outside of Washington. It is more fundamental than that. It is a desire to Trust that the leadership of the country and the 2 parties will put aside having their parties be the priority instead of the people they represent. The key point is that people want to trust their government and know that it is working to better improve their lives. This is an issue of trust, integrity, and being proud to believe in your government.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  56. Keith

    Everyone wants CHANGE as long it's not in their backyard!

    Ft Leonard Wood, MO

    January 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  57. DJK

    Simply voting in a newcomer or and outsider does not necessarily bring about change. Jimmy Carter was a good, moral guy, a Washington outsider...what did he change? His Presidency was a disaster. But comes from a political dynasty, yes, but he was not exactly a Beltway dinosaur either.

    Jack, it is the media's narrative that the people only want change. We actually care about competence and strength, too. It does us no good to vote in someone with a deficient resume. Simply being "new" is not enough to run the executive branch properly.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  58. Sudhir

    Change is easy to talk about but difficult to accept. Change from Bush to Hillary or McCain is also a change. But changing from divided country to united one is much bigger change. People sometime accept smaller changes easily but are scared to accept bigger changes.

    Hillary and McCain both project themselves as change agents but they are talking about minor changes whereas Obama talks about fundamental changes. This election will show if people can really digest fundamental change. I hope they do.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  59. Arjav Ezekiel

    I don't accept the premise of your question. By no means is Hillary Clinton the front-runner, Obama is clearly in the lead as far as delegates go. I think the country is salivating for change as is the Democratic establishment; the strong support Obama is seeing from party elites (Kennedy, Kerry) surely is evidence of the changing political ethos.
    Although McCain has become part of the Washington machine in the last 26 years, it is clear that he does not fit the mold of a traditional conservative. He has for years, even when it was difficult, defied Republican leadership and the conservative platform coming out against torture and advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
    I believe that on February 6th after half the country votes, we will see Obama and McCain at the reigns of what is surely to be one of the most exciting elections in American history.

    Arjav Ezekiel
    Kenyon College '10

    January 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  60. aten imago

    For years I've stated that the American voter is ill-qualified through a fundamental lack of education to vote for the the right candidate for the Presidency. This has and will continue to encourage less than qualified candidates to run for and occupy that coveted office. Since we know that special interest groups run our political system, then change has to begin with 1) Educating Americans towards informed decision making and 2) Putting democratic rule directly in the hands of the voters. Our system of representative democracy is outmoded in the 21st Century.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  61. Sarasmom

    What is change? Bush waving BYE BYE to all of us is all the change I have asked for.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  62. Dennis Burt

    Hey Jack,

    Change isn't better or worse, it is just change. I think people know that change is an uncertainty. What courage it would take for a politician to run on a platform of "reform" or even "start over". Changing what we have simply means doing the same thing differently. People know that. If someone really wanted to create a new environment of cooperation and intelligent choice I would vote for them in a New York minute. The problem isn't that we won't vote for change, it's that no one is really proposing anything new.


    January 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  63. Thomas, FL

    It's pretty ironic isn't it Jack? Iowa wanted someone tough on immigration, so they picked Huckabee who wants scholarships for illegals. New Hampshire wanted someone good on the economy, so they picked a Senator who has never run a business and admitted himself that he doesn't know much about the economy. It is absolutely sickening how uninformed the average voter is, and the rest of us will have to pay for it.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  64. Kathie

    Change is never easy but.. someone has to take this country by the bootstraps, distance themselves from the White House crap as we know it, and bring us back to what our Founding Fathers meant this country to be.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  65. Leonard

    We need change, but we won't get it until we have a legitimate third party to choose from. Obama talks about change and that he is not about the same old Washington insider, but he is receiving endorsements from these same oldWashington insiders that he mentions. Kennedy, Kerry, and the same old party elders will mold Obama in their image.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  66. Ann, MO

    The spin on every issue is to make it look like "their candidate" is for change. The two front runners are basically identical on the major issues of Immigration and the war. Hillary voted for the war, but now "spins" herself as being against it, but who can really tell since she has flip flopped so many times about troop withdrawal that one can only wonder. McCain is also for the war. McCain was for the "comprehensive immigration reform" just as Hillary is, but now both say that they will "secure the border first" It is all about spin, spin, spin--we will all have to "hold our nose" and vote for someone, Please God help us!!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  67. Bert D

    It might have something to do with the fact that, for the Democrats at least, the party powerful retain a full 40% of nominating power in the form of the "superdelegates" to the national convention. That means that we, the powerless and meaningless people get to select the other 60% which sounds good until you realize that that 60% is split half and half between Hillary and Obama. Ok, now who's ahead? That's right, the party power brokers whom do not want change. I imagine the Pubs are no different.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  68. Decision2008


    I think we have misinterpreted the "CHANGE". We want to change the Bush's administration not any other change. Any inexperienced intern in White House will cause another four year of bad economy, etc. – THAT IS NOT THE CHANGE WE WANT!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  69. Peter Parker

    Yeah sure, I want change. But change from George W. Bush and his nonsense government. Change from war against imaginary threats. Change from colors of fear to describe the possibility of a terrorist attack. Change from a Vice-President on the payroll of a big government contractor. Change from the influence of drug cartel on the street of America. Change from the race issues that divided us so deeply. Change from a Congress that doesn´t work for the people. Change from a campaign about winning political power and not about providing solutions to people´s problems.
    So many changes Jack..so little a vote can do for...

    January 30, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  70. Mohammad, Los Angeles California

    Mind-boggling...simply mind-boggling! All these candidates have stolen Barack Obama's original message of 'change'. And to think, that the American people, after voting for George W. Bush a second time, would not learn their lesson, that is the saddest thing about this election.

    It is quite clear– if Americans want change, they should vote for Obama. The democratic establishment is behind him. Nearly every important figure of our time has given either direct or indirect support for him.

    Why don't Americans support him, if they want change? Obviously, Clinton and Mccain do not represent change, right?

    The answer: Americans are politically inept. Most Americans do not even know that Florida was a so-called 'beauty contest'. Women are voting for Clinton because she's a woman. Republicans, for some odd reason, support Mccain even though he pretty much has many values that go against their so-called 'conservative values'.

    And, more importantly, Americans voted for George W. Bush, TWICE.

    They obviously spend too much time on the superbowl, not enough time on the CNN political ticker.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  71. John

    That would be a sad day if out of 300 million Americans the best candidates the two major parties can come up with are an idiot who can't wait to attack Iran and "Billary" two more terms Clinton. To paraphrase Sen. McCain's comment last week, that would be America's worst nightmare.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  72. Suzanne

    Change may be frightening but the status quo is even more so. Hey, it's not over until the fat lady sings. Cream rises to the top – Obamarama is oin the horizon.
    And Jack, just love you too.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  73. Marie Arlington Tx

    If you aren't afraid of it, you will vote for change. Funny thing about change, It comes at times when we are afraid to reach out for it.

    What is it that describes "crazy"...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  74. Mimi Denman

    I think the amazing success of Barack Obama's campaign is proof that not only are people looking for change, they are coming out in record numbers to vote for change. There is only one candidate that can really bring back the America we treasure and want to preserve and that is Barack Obama.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  75. Dave Brooklyn, NY

    The only reason we don’t vote for change is because we don’t have anybody to vote for. The only candidate that offers any chance of change is Ron Paul, but even if he got in, he’s too socially conservative and will continue to irreparably shift the Supreme Court to the extreme right and it will take until the end of this century to balance it out again. Any candidate who would make a real change has been marginalized by the media, like Kucinich and was never given anywhere near the free publicity as the chosen darlings.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  76. David T.


    People who scoff at the value of inspiration should reflect on it a little. It's that singular force that propels us to go against the inertia that is ingrained in us all: the natural tendency to resist change.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  77. Andrew

    Humanity, and more specifically, American's are terrified of change. We've become so abhorrent tot he idea that we will willfully dismember and decimate our freedoms and virtues for the appearance of 'stability' and 'normalcy'. America actively seeks to further our detriment by placating the entities that would see us wither and fail by creating 'free trade' agreements so that it's cheaper to send American jobs to countries that allow their citizens to be treated as little more than slaves. All of this so that they don't get angry and threaten to withhold our imports or raise the prices on our exports (what few of them remain). Because the one thing American's cannot abide, is change. We react badly to change, almost idiotically to the most mundane of societal speed bumps, and this overzealous and over packaged reactions create panic, recession and a furthering loss of our most basic freedoms.

    A great number of people believe that the electoral process is flawed, so it is during the caucuses and primaries that Americans have a chance to TRULY have their voices heard. And while we want change we think "Is this person qualified?" and "Have they done this job before?".

    The question we should be asking instead is, "Why are we electing the American 'royalty' again?" George Washington, our first president, did not have American political experience, and yet we elected him over 200 years ago, and he put us on the right path. We need someone who is intelligent, but has no clue how 'politics' work.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  78. Reid C. Granke, Madison, WI

    Jack Cafferty, as usual, is right on target with his political observations. I am very deeply saddened by John Edwards having to withdraw from the presidential race. Big corporations have won again. I'm a man so I'm not supposed to cry, but I sure feel like it. May GOD help us because this nation is in deep trouble. The middle class is quickly being wiped out and religious eccentrics are in bed with the fat cats who are wiping out the middle class. Are we heading back into the dark ages?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  79. Matthew H, Atlanta


    Like most organizations, the American people are somewhat resistant to change. After being disappointed so many times they believe that true substantive change may be beyond their reach. The Obama campaign represents the best possibility to bring about change as he has shown he can bridge the partisan divides within us as an American people and begin to seek the common ground we all desperately need to reach.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  80. Janet

    In this election it's not so much about "change" as it is about moving ahead, getting something done, ending all the in-fighting. People are tired of listening to everyone beating each other up while our country is sliding down the slippery slope. They want the blame game to stop and the focus to be on fixing the problems that confront us every day.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  81. Mimi Denman

    I think the amazing success of Barack Obama’s campaign is proof that not only are people looking for change, they are coming out in record numbers to vote for change. There is only one candidate that can really bring back the America we treasure and want to preserve and that is Barack Obama.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  82. Julia from NJ

    Our nation was founded by educated, righteous citizens who were fed up with their former government, and in our Constitution they provided that citizens of the United States have the right to do so. I think Americans have forgotten that change is what our nation was founded upon. We should embrace change, not fear it. There’s no way we can revolutionize our current system of Washington without some radical change in our government and the mega corporations that run it.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  83. buckster

    The main issue is that many women are voting for Hilary only because she's a woman. That's just as bad as voting for someone based solely upon race.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  84. Kevin McElroy


    Until we find a true independent populist with the smarts to do the job, the perseverance to weather the verbal brutality and dirty tricks of the Washington Two-Party Machine, and the deep pockets to fund a national campaign, we are stuck.........those of you that meet these qualifications, are you listening? We need you to step up right now.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  85. TR in Colorado

    I hope you're wrong and that people wake up.

    Feb. 5th could be the turning point if Obama does well.

    His 'change' may not be as radical as some would like, or too radical for others; but at least one can hope for a difference if he gets elected.

    Electing either Clinton or McCain would be keeping the status quo, and of these two I'd rather see McCain win, as Hillary is just too polarizing (and this is coming from someone who's never voted for a republican before).

    Just got my Obama yard sign and bumper stickers. Ready to rock!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  86. David

    Simply voting in a newcomer/outsider does not necessarily bring about change, at least not good change. Jimmy Carter was a good, moral guy, a Washington outsider…what did he change? His Presidency was a disaster. Bush comes from a political dynasty, yes, but he was not exactly a Beltway dinosaur either. I don't think the failures of his Presidency need introduction.

    Jack, it is the media’s narrative that the people only want change. We actually care about competence and strength, too, rumors to the contrary. It does us no good to vote in someone with a deficient resume simply because they're a stranger to Washington. Simply being “new” is not enough to run the executive branch properly.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  87. Brad Caudle

    I for one would feel more comfortable voting for change if I knew what kind of change I was voting for. Change can be good or bad. Candidates need to provide more details about the changes they would bring.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  88. Toni Bourlon

    "Change" is only a word. No one running is giving any specifics on anything, and it would be pointless if they did. Because whatever their plan, they have to get it through Congress. I think it's easier to run a rope through the eye of a needle than to get Congress to make any meaningful changes. I support McCain because I believe he is a true conservative – one who won't cut taxes without cutting spending. Tax cuts are popular, spending cuts aren't, and that's half the problem right there. As much as I support him, I know it will be an uphill battle to accomplish this. I also supported Edwards, too bad he didn't catch on, because he was honest enough to admit back in 2004 just how difficult it would be to balance the budget (the popular "change" at that time) when everyone wanted to spend money on their pet projects. Like Hillary wanting to pay the heating bills for the poor. Great sentiment, but how are you going to pay for that, Hillary?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  89. sarah

    Change doesn't scare me. More of the same, however, is terrifying. And I'm not just talking about the past seven years. John Edwards represented those Americans who have been marginalized since the Reagan Era. Ask the young people, like myself, struggling to pay off student loans, without any form health care if we are scared of change. Absolutely not! With John Edwards out who am I suppose to vote for now? Ron Paul?
    Sarah, Springfield, MO

    January 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  90. simeon

    Jack voters want change they just keep doing the same thing,that of course is voting for the Dems or Republicans.I am now totally convinced that the only candidate of real change will have to come from a Third Party.By the way if Lou Dobbs does run how bout Vice President Jack Cafferty at least we will finally get a direct answer to a question.Yeah now that's change!!!!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  91. Steve S.

    I think Obama would turn Washington upside down. If only the country had the courage to put him in.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  92. C.E.

    Change? Everyone wants change but no one is willing to accept change.
    The only real hope we, as Americans, have is for Barack Obama to choose
    John Edwards (who really should be the next president) to be his running mate.
    God, I hope he does.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  93. DV

    Things have changed in the last few months. A fire has ignited- and I think the State of the Union address has helped feed that fire of change. Ultimately we want results in this country and "change" doesn't always equal results. Sometimes experience is how results get made. All this interest in Obama as the "it" guy IS captivating. But, when it comes down to it- The American people want someone who won't be left standing with the clipboard saying "If we do this, this will happen; if we do that, that will happen, let's deliberate...let's explore all options..." It is great in theory; however, we need a president who has spent her life deliberating and is ready to make the decisions needed NOW. Hillary '08.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  94. Crews2me

    We the people are afraid to make a move towards change! Often times we get side track with the thought of losing which pushes us to vote in the status quo which creates frustration and anger. The change and excitement that is in the air now is about the prospects of a candidate who truly brings us together and inspires us to a higher calling. A candidate who has brought out new voters, independence and Republicans to the conversation. Imagine a President inspiring us through a bully pulpit to unifying red and blue states, a President that isn't divisive and a leader who actually try diplomacy first before confrontation.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  95. Melissa Bocci

    Jack, how can we really care about change if all we have are candidates that are alittle like those we voted for in High school, the poplar ones, you remember. None of the kids that were really smart or even normal, ever won a seat on student government. Change will only come about when we vote with our heads and not with our eyes, that means, people like Ron Paul or Joe Biden. I can only hope that with Obama, comes change. If you will remember, we did have change with GWB – look where that got us............enough said.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  96. Terry

    I think change is here in Obama. Hillary is what's wrong with politics. It's time to stop to politics of old and move forward. McCain is not a conservative and is the Republican's worst nighmare, but they're so worry about retaining power that they have not alternative. I'm not sure Obama will be the really thing, but he the best hope this country has seen since RFK. Let's face the facts, independents decide elections and Hillary has not growth ouside of the democratic party. Obama is the only canditate who has this potential. It will be a sad day in November if Hillary or McCain become President. Change will of taken a step back!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  97. mathew

    I absolulty was routing for Clinton (i am canadian so i can not vote) but I can't understand how she thinks she is going to implicate universal healthcare in a country that 5% of the population own 95% of the wealth. People of the lower class will end up paying the price for the middle and upper class. I like Obama's plan for healthcare by starting at the rout of the problem, the overwelming cost of it. As a member of the county that a lot of other countries say has the best healthcare, I would say Obama's plan is a lot better to start the rebuilding of healthcare in the one the the greatest countries in the world. Clinton thinks u can just make healthcare universal in America, i say Rome could not be built in a day, every plan needes a start.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  98. LCB

    Talk about sarcasm, this is the most "changed" primaries I have ever witnessed. One woman, one black man, one millionaire, one minister, one war hero, and the winners are...Stay tune...

    January 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  99. LP

    The status quo is always less scary than out and out change. I believe that John Edwards radical views frightened some voters away. Some change is good, but a lot at one time might be too hard to swallow. Personally, I voted for him.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  100. Nanc

    If we really want change, we need to be willing to make changes in ourselves.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  101. Len

    Saldy I believe that the people of this country do not want change particularly in their political leaders. People would rather have what they know then what they do not know. Change is challenging for many people and some are just simply unequipped to deal with it. The same types of things in this country continue to divide us i.e. black vs. white, latino vs. black , rich vs.poor even as we sit here in the 21st century. Because of money and special interests it is very diffilcult for new leaders to emerge and be elected. I also believe that this is why 2 families have shared leadership of this country over the past 28 years.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  102. Trudi

    We did vote for change. We voted for change in 2006. The democrats promised it to us. So far they've given Bush everything he wants on a silver platter and Patirck Lehey turns his head to all the White House Corruption. So...fool me once...shame on me

    Now Obama promises us change. He doesn't tell us how he's going to deliver and he's getting endorsements from Kennedy and Edwards who should have left Congress a long ago...I'm not buying his message of change....Fool me twice, I'm a moron.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  103. Robert

    Change will never happen until the Congress is swept out, thus throwing the "old money" out. As long as the straghold exists on our Congress by lobbyists and large corporations, any candidate promoting "change" will be saying it into an 60mph wind!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  104. John

    The truth is;
    Change costs too much. Its the same reason that there is no real pork spending reform or real campaign finance reform. Jack, change costs; friends, positions, prestige and not to mention money!

    A notable quote: when traveling down lifes' highway and you come face to face with truth, Turn Around!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  105. Mary

    It sure makes you wonder. Last presidential election people had enough of the war and Bush still won. I think we really need to look at do WE want the change or do we want others to magically change things for us. Wanting it and demanding and owning the vehicle for it are two very different things.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  106. Nan

    Every time someone is elected to public office, we get change. There will be a new president. Bingo! A change. There will be new faces in congress. Bingo! Another change. Our country has been changing for over 200 years. Sometimes we get it right on the first try, sometimes on a later try. But one thing is for sure, change is constant. Senator Obama promises change. So what. Change is inevitable.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  107. Tyran


    Of course voters want change and there is only one candidate left in this race who can deliver it to the American people–Barack Obama! But make no mistake about it, true change won't occur until the American people demand more acccountability from their leaders.

    Take Hillary's latest tactic to regain attention on the national stage. She was unwilling to stay the course in South Carolina and thank the dear people of South Carolina who campaigned hard for her and went to the polls last Saturday to vote. She hopped on a plane and put the hopes and dreams of South Carolinians in her rearview mirror. Nevertheless, she was willing to go to Florida to thank people that she never met, not because she cares about delegate votes counting but, instead, because it takes attention and momentum from Barack Obama's campaign. If the American people are going to see change take place, we can no longer afford to allow this sort of politics to dominate Washington.

    Sadly, it seems that the American people are not truly engaging the politics of each candidate other than hearing a blurb or shibboleth from each candidate here and there. How many Americans visit the candidate's website he or she is supporting to see where that candidate truly stands on the issues? I suppose that not many do this and only end up voting for the names that are familiar to them. It's like the NBA all-star game, except the corollary to us choosing to go with the status quo has far deepening effects than a three hour ball game.

    Jack, in the final analysis, you do realize that if Clinton wins the Presidency, we will have the last four Presidents of the United with a last name of Bush or Clinton. There is on way that we can believe that any change will come about should that happen. I guess the only change will be the first name of the candidate in office.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  108. JC

    Americans want change for the moment. We get caught up in a frenzy that lasts far too short for the purpose. The election is reminiscent of the 911 events. One week all the flags on vehicles! People with patriotic pins and ribbons! I had a woman come up to me and ask if she could pin a small set of red, white and blue streamers on my shirt. I of course said yes. The next week, flags on the road, crushed and ran over. No pins or ribbons. They faded as if the meaning had no original purpose. So goes elections.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  109. Kevin, Ohio

    Voters are more concerned about which candidate can save us from the rescission we about to enter very soon. Come November, Hillary Clinton can easily run on her husband record that during the Clinton's Administration the economy was at its best in American history. We know that American citizens are more focus on the economy right now, so Hillary has the upper hand to cash in on her husband previous record. However, if Hillary becomes president there will be changes in policy making but no change of people in office. We will be going from a Bush dynasty to a Clinton dynasty, and we have already had too much of that in the past. I personally think the best candidate for change would be Barack Obama since we never had an Obama dynasty in Washington.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  110. Curtis from Eastern U.S.


    We certainly need change and lots of it in the right direction. There is actually a foundation that our government is built upon that we should return to - it is the Constitution. It is time for us to vote our conscience and elect a candidate who has wisdom and experience but is not tainted by big money politics. The one candidate left for the Republicans is Ron Paul. He is the last hope that America has. He would deal with the real problems that face our country, such as national bankruptcy and global militarism on behalf of the U.S.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  111. Ron

    You will not get change with John or Hillary.....real change will come from Romney or Obama. The public is sleeping or just plain stupid.

    Ron–Wheaton, IL

    January 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  112. Barry G

    Change = Barack Obama. We've had too many Yale grads in the White House. Time for a Harvard man to return.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  113. Matt

    I know that I really do want change and for a long time I was under the impression that Hillary was the one that was going to bring it to us. Once it became clear that she was just out to win at any cost, and was playing the same old political game I left team Hillary and threw all of my support behind Obama. I now stand alone among most of my New York friends but after volunteering in South Carolina last weekend and meeting the people who make up Obamas team, I know I made the right, ethical decision.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  114. James Brown (Independent )

    Damn straight Americans want change ! We are sick of a house divided and a do nothing congress , and thats what Hillary Clinton brings to the table "more of the same".

    January 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  115. GK

    Yes, the people want change and they will vote for it. But, the premise of your question is that candidates who have been part of the Washington establishment cannot lead that change. It is a mistaken assumption and suggests a false choice. Either of the Democratic candidates likely to be chosen in November will change policies related to the war in Iraq, the economy or health care in significant ways. It would be more helpful if you focused on what changes they would make and how they intend to bring about those changes. Why CNN continues to enable your political bias makes a viewer question their objectivity.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  116. Clifford

    Based on the low voter turnout, the majority of voters either could care less or they are just plain lazy. I've voted for the past 30 years regardless if I was off the coast of Somalia while serving our country in the United States Navy or in Bahrain with my fellow reservists.

    Obama can preach change all he wants but he's doing nothing more than giving voters false hope. He stirs up the crowds with his false hopes and he knows that he can encite voters by preaching he can make the United States better. For once, I wish he and the other candidates would ask the voters what they are going to do to make their communities and our country better. I joined the military in 1992 because I too was fed up with our country but more importantly, I joined the Navy because Bill Clinton spoke at a rally and asked everyone what they would do to make their country better.

    It takes for American citizens to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem.


    St. Petersburg, Florida

    January 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  117. Jill

    Yes, the country and its politics are BROKEN. We need change for our sake and our children's futures.

    I think most Americans think we are heading in the wrong direction. We are losing our edge globally, we are not fixing the biggest problems facign us, we are squandering our opportunities ....

    Change is our only option.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  118. Sarah

    The press must stop choosing our candidates for us. You all didn't give John Edwards, the only candidate who was electable and would change things, nearly the same attention you gave to Clinton and Obama. Now, by the way you phrased this question, you're declaring Clinton as the Democratic candidate. Stop pressing and be just press.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  119. kathy lewton

    Everyone voting for Obama - who has more delegates now than Hillary - is clearly seeking change. Remember - more Democrats voted for SOTH (Someone Other Than Hillary) than voted for her. She is NOT the choice of the majority. Do the math, Jack - she has a plurality, but you don't win a general election with a plurality.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  120. Scott

    Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992... That's a big number for change against the machine and was exciting to see the challenge, we just haven't seen anyone since then worthy of a revolution. I had always hoped Gore would get into the fray, but I'm still feeling great about our candidates this year... ANYTHING is better than the past eight insufferable years of George Bush!

    Rocky Face, GA

    January 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  121. gigi

    The only person that would have possibly given us change has had to suspend his campaign so that gives me no hope for change any time soon. John Edwards could have brought about change but the corporate elite and the media did not want him.
    I will have to do a lot more studying the candidates before I can even think of voting for them. If John Edwards is not on the ballot next Tuesday, I will walk out without voting.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  122. Max (Miami)

    It seems that all the candidates are using "Change" as there voice of inspiration in this election.
    I haven't heard once how Senator Obama plans to change the economy, healthcare system, foreclosures and so forth.

    I've heard Senator Clinton's voice on these matters..

    I live in Miami and in my heart I know that my vote yesterday mattered....

    January 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  123. Sue Clayton


    The American people do want change, as long as it does not affect us to personally. The bottom line is, we are not willing to make any of the necessary sacrifices that change involves And effective change requires sacrifice.

    Sue Clayton
    Irving, TX

    January 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  124. Kevin from Boston

    People do want change and the wave of democratic support is just starting to form into a tidal wave for Obama. Lets face it McCain will NEVER be elected president just based upon the fact of his stance on the war and refusing to understand that the american people want it ended and us out of Iraq and the american lives to stop dying for all thr wrong reasons. Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11 despite the delusions that the republicans are under and try to purport to the public, it is proven fact. I hope Obama wins because I think he is more electable against McCain who is basically too old to "get it" in today's society. Obama will get my vote. I fear that Clinton will polarize more people while Obama will bring them together.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  125. Ellen

    Apparently none of the other candidates have (so far) convinced enough voters that they really represent change either. There is still a chance someone might. Unfortunely the process is so complicated and campaigning is so expensive, we have very little choice. Until campaign financing is changed, this will continue, and we will continue to have to vote for the person we HOPE will bring change. I'm afraid I will not live long enough to see that happen!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  126. Tom

    Sure people want change, anything is better that this! So why didn't we elect Ross Perot? Why isn't Ron Paul polling better? Simple follow the money. They can't attract it. Besides, neither of them had or has a snowballs chance in heck of winning because of that, and no one wants to stand at the water cooler the next day and say 'I voted for the guy who lost'. Courage is all it takes to make things better. Sadly, we seem to be lacking it.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  127. fumes

    good question, jack. i like congressman dr ron paul from texas myself. while the other candidates talk the talk, my guy walks the walk. and as president ron paul, he will be able to bring our troops home from around the world without anyone's permission or interference, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars for our economy while stopping the "wars" in iraq and afghanistan and eliminating our menacing presence elsewhere. that would constitute change in my book, how bout yours? ps- love the cafferty file

    January 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  128. SUZYQ

    "Change" that magic word is in the air. Yet, one has to be realistic. In order to get change, one must fight some battles in order to win. Obama is a new breed in American poltics, but he is still young and needs a little more experience and understanding in Washington before he can be President. We know that Clinton has the experience and toughness to fight for what's right. Change can mean many things to Washington. Change should not mean turning the whole government inside out with a whole new breed. That could in itself be devastating. Obama is a great speaker but I wonder what he would give up to compromise? I really as of yet don't know what his specifics are to accomplish change. All politicians promise change, but the question is who actually has plans to get things done, even if we may not agree with everything that has been said.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  129. Nadira Yakhni (Toronto)

    Jack, the American wants change but they will never gets it if the media keeps running with the head liner instead of the real issue. Mr OBAMA is your man for head liner.
    Go Hillary!
    I know you will not post this, that's okay too.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  130. Paulina Williams

    Change is the only thing that we can predict. Yet, most people are afraid of it. Are voters ready for a change? I don't believe so; people feel safe with what is familiar.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  131. Tired of being Tired

    They say if you want change vote. Yet we never change our vote to allow change.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  132. Stanley

    It's the system, period. You want change? A dictator would bring wholesale changes but then how would you get rid of him/her? Kinda like we are caught in our own web. Obama is our best choice for real change, but really an unknown.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  133. sb

    Choosing someone else the republician is a "Change" voting for first femaile president is a big change. She will win among the male dominated congress, country and mind set.

    Hope this change happens and it all depends on us.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  134. Joe

    Jack....if we change the way these people do business, then we risk the country going ino a long recession. The markets will tumble as well as the world financial areas. We don't do change very well. We need not tip over the apple cart. McCain and Clinton are well versed in the folly of politics, so let's just go along, nice...nice...besides, I'm gonna retire soon and In need all my 401K money!

    Joe – St. Augustine, Florida

    January 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  135. Chris

    The political process and media outlets currently in-place make it very difficult for anyone other than established political leaders to get their message out, in other words provide the exposure necessary to win votes in a full nationwide contest. The entire primary process builds on the left or right viewpoints from either party and each candidate must pander to specific power groups within their party to be nominated, carrying a large amount of baggage if or when they are elected to office. Any candidate that is not pandering has a very difficult time raising the necessary cash to campaign in step with the established candidates.

    Americans desire change but appear completely unwilling to risk anything for change, and not all change is for the good. The leadership change in 2000 was dramatic both fiscally and morally, but where are we now?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  136. Justin Morris

    I think Clinton and McCain are both a big change from the present administration. And if Clinton does not get the nom, I will vote for McCain. And I have never voted for a republican in my life. In eight years I might consider Obama again, but he certainly is not the change I am looking for now. I want someone with experience, not just rhetoric.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  137. Dr. Auriel Combs

    The downside is we could have another Don Q. chasing windmills in the White House. Obama in many ways is like Jimmy Carter. Nice guy, Washington outsider. Lousy President. When in comes to world politics we don't need a Martin Luther King, we really need a Jimmy Hoffa. That's an indictment of our system, but it is the very reason Bill and GW were two termers. They were good at twisting arms, and the truth at times. It's broken, but putting a non-effective well wisher in even if like Lou spews and Indepedent hell it ain't gonna get any better.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  138. Cheryl Curtis

    Many of us want change and many of us do not; I personally do. But the fact of the matter is the candidates with the least money do not get all of the "free face time" on television by the networks because they do not have as much to spend on television advertising during the primary elections. They to not get lots of free "sound bites" out there at no cost as do the the wealthy candidates. The media owns the presidential race and unfortunately, many Americans do not pursue the candidates and his/her stand on issues beyond what they see on television.

    Many of our candidates do not make it through the primary elections due to the reasons listed above. Also, I want the Electoral College gone. There was a need for it in the horse and buggy days when people could not get to the polls. That is no longer a problem so my vote is not truly a vote on a Election Day. That makes me angry, but I vote anyway to try to make a difference.

    Our political system needs a compete overhaul, but how the hell can we get one when our candidate never makes it through the current system?


    January 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  139. mit mar

    Change means UNCERTAINTY, not knowing what will
    will happen. What we do know for sure., History will be made.
    America Lets GET THIS RIGHT. This is not a Puzzle.
    Hillary will Make a Great President. Lets not HOPE OBAMA will.


    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  140. Kalvin Paddyfote

    We need a referendum to get term limits for Congress. This will clean out the corruption. Career politicians are going to be the down fall of this great country. Congress is bought and paid for. The president can only be purchased by special interest groups for eight years maximum. Senators, Congressmen, and Congresswomen can be purchased for as long as they can be reelected. The winning game is earmarks, keep them coming into your district and you keep getting elected. PAC's and lobbyists control the votes of Congress. If we truly want change, then the American people will get term limits for Congress.

    Beltway survivor

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  141. Mary Steele Yorktown VA

    Come on Jack,

    You should know this one.

    We vote for change, but once they get in office they go stupid and forget what they promised that got them elected.

    Case-in-point-the Democrats Fair, open and honest. Their closed rules and continuously spending us into the poor house, are not the actions we were promised.

    Taking away from seniors to give to illegals.

    Illegals and too many guest workers are destroying our economy, health care and job market.

    We want harsher penalties and enforcement of employment and harboring laws, but they continue to do what they want and that is not representing the American people.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  142. Jason

    Do we really want a Bush and Clinton era. Already for the last 20 years only 2 families (Bush & Clinton) have been in the White House. I think its time for CHANGE and have a different person with the last name in the White House.

    If Hillary Clinton comes into power what will she do so different than her husband Bill. Also if Hillary wins then most likely she'll be in for 2 terms which will equal to 28 years of the Bush and Clinton Dynasty. Do we really want that?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  143. Laura Thompson

    Well Jack the only solution to the problem is.... FIRE THEM ALL !!!! Let's put new and fresh people in office let's start from sratch! This is the ONLY solution to this problem in Washington, all they care about is their ego's and not the American people who put them there in the first place! Let's get rid of that CANCER once and for all.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  144. Linda

    I want change but I need to be realistic with change. I want someone who knows the system, knowledge of the system, experience working with the system to make changes as soon as elected. That person is Hillary. I do not want a freshman senator taking over major problems who has no clue to fix them. I remember people saying how President Bush was a likeable person, and elected him, who had gotten us in a mess. He has no clue to fix the ecomony, mess with foreign affairs, cut domestic programs, and national debt. This job is for experienced senator (Hillary) who has been there making changes. Yes I want change, but realistic change who I can trust to fix the problems. Go Hillary!!!!!!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  145. Bill Adams

    It all comes back to conditioned response. When you put the same two choices in front of people they are conditioned to vote one way or another. Its Pavlonian really.When an Independent does come forward they are usually so extreme left or right it scares the hell out of people and they go where they are comfortable back to the good ol' Dumbocrats and Restumblekins.
    If the country ever produced a centrist Independent they would clean up!
    You would think in a country of hundreds of millions of people we could find 300 good Independents to take back Washington!

    Bill Adams
    Ridgeley,WV 26753

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  146. Barbara

    Obama can preach his vision, but nothing in his track record tells me he can produce change. HIllary has the track record, but can she see past the Clinton legacy to do right by the people? Change isn't in the Republican party's vocabulary. The American Dream is dead for millions of citizens who simply want stability in their daily lives – good jobs with decent pay, good education for their children and affordable health care for the whole family. Until that a-ha moment arrives for the candidates, we're all doomed.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  147. keith

    I think the middle class wants change, but know they can't get it. Yet!
    Edwards only downfall was his lack of dollars to get heard. Its no longer about democracy. The party's knows (as the communist party in russia in the 80's) and have known who they wanted for a year now. The primary is just window dressing to build voter support, or should I say voter indocrination.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  148. Steve

    The checks and balances built into our government discourage all but incremental change, regardless of the personalities of the politicians who sit in office because our founding fathers were afraid of change, and for a good reasons. History up until the time of the American Revolution was the history of tyrants and history was not kind to ordinary people. If you look seriously at the recent history of the twentieth century, with millions of people around the world killed and repressed by communist and fascist governments alike, it is clear that the founding fathers were on to something. A vote for undefined "change" is a vote to pretend to forget human nature as expressed in history!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  149. Vinnie Vino

    Most people in this country are afraid of changing the status quo in our government, they fear the unknown change would bring to it. So I think the Washington establishment provides them with the security things will remain the same and the politicians know this... It's time for us to take back our government and revolutionize it...

    January 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  150. Laurie Schleicher

    People want change but they also want to be comfortable the person they are voting for can handle the job. Clinton and McCain are known quantities. I'm old enough to remember when people really voted for change and we ended up with the "outsider" Jimmy Carter. A good man, but not a very good president. Which resulted in Ronald Reagan getting elected, and the wholesale screwing of the middle class began in earnest then. George Bush came out of the woodwork 8 years ago. That hasn't worked out well either. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is impossible in this day and age. I would like things to change, but just because you think a person would be fun to have a beer and hot dog with doesn't mean he is qualified to be president. You just have to listen carefully, choose according to what your true self interests are and participate. That's the only way things are going to change.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  151. dvg

    Maybe it's because the "change" narrative doesn't mean anything, despite our having to hear about it every minute.

    This article implies that you only get "change" when you elect someone who's not a Democrat or Republican in Washington. I guess that means you have to vote for a governor. In the last 4 elections, this is what people have done. Only the first Bush bucks this trend over the past 30 years. Of course once they get to Washington, they become Democrats or Republicans in Washington, and then have to fight off some challenger who bills themselves as the "change" or anti-establishment candidate, despite probably having a great deal of support from their fellow party members in Washington, a policy team picked from the same pool of people, access to the same fundraising sources, and a common interest in the party winning all contested elections.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  152. Justin Casey

    I'm a college student and I want change. I tired of growing up with these true politicians spitting lies into the faces of hard working Americans. I'm tired of people voting for party instead of the candidate that would benefit everyone most.

    The economy increased 0.6% this 4th quarter which other countries have maintained a 3.5% increase- while China and India are into double digits for growth.

    The housing market is horrible.

    The Fed just slashed rates AGAIN making the interest rate 3%.

    The USD is low. The EURO is high.

    This is only a small portion of things that I would like to change. Wouldn't you like change too? Wouldn't you like to live in a better America? Don't you want a future leader that doesn't lie to you but supports what you believe and doesn't flip flop points of views to make words sound like music to your ears?

    Come on people. Change is inevitable. Embrace it.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  153. John from CT

    Jack, change will begin when Senator Clinton or Senator Obama become president. And a HISTORICAL one at that. But that change will not happen until we change those voting machines so our votes do count.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  154. Barry

    Hillary is the frontrunner and the right choice. Hillary has worked hard for everyhing that she has gottten, and she has weathered alot of storms and charges that have been thrown at her.
    People either lover her or hate her and this is getting tiring. Look at the person not all the retoric that has been said about her. I think you will find someone that as she says can do the job and go forward from Day 1. She is the best choice for our country and she has alot to offer and will move us in the right driection.

    I have listened to Obama on debates and on the campain trail and I am sorry there is nothiing inspiring about him. We would be in the same boat we were when the Supreme Court selected Bush W the first time around. No real experience dealing with world issues etc.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  155. trudy

    We all want to go on the journey to change, we just can't agree on how to get there. Some want the highway, some want the scenic route, but everyone wants to drive.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  156. Walter Grimes

    I think people are more annoyed at the Bureaucracy than any particular person or party. Ron Paul's core support exists to annihilate the IRS. They want to change the way the government operates, but not necessarily who leads it.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  157. Russ from PA

    Talk is cheap, particularly when it comes to wanting change. If people took the time to research, and would stop depending on the fodder handed out by much of the news media, then they'd be able to make an informed choice. For me, there is no other choice for change than Ron Paul. I said it again: Ron Paul. Look at his record in Congress...

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  158. Jack in Georgia

    It's hard to change things when so much of what the government does is in secret.
    If the American Public was aware of more issues or bills that were being considered for legislation and look at them in their entirety, including any Pork,
    then they could contact their respective Representatives and let them know how they feel.
    Term Limits and complete public financing of campaigns is the only way we can hope to bring about change. But the good ole' boys won't go for this.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  159. Michael Wager

    Mr. Cafferty, you raise the most acute question for this or any other presidential cycle. Is the electorate seeking "change" or the continuation of current policy and practice? And, what are the long term effects of these outcomes?

    While a vote for Hillary Clinton could certainly be construed as support for either side of this question (as a woman, she represents change; as a Washington functionary since 1974, she is the establishment), her continuation of BC (Bush -Clinton), dynastic politics is most compelling argument for a change of leadership.

    Both parties have adequate choices without continued resort to the same familial lines for another term of service.

    24 years of this unlikely "bipartisan dynasty" is challenge enough to a real two-party democracy.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  160. Don


    A better question .."Is why does the Drive-by media always support the liberal Washington insiders?" Once you Clinton News Network folks answer that question you have the answer to this question!!!! The American voters have voted for change in every election and what did we get? NOTHING!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  161. Simon Vouet

    Everyone wants change. But, now we need someone that can repair our economy, our country. We cannot change until we fix what has been broken- and our economy and our country have been broken. Someone experienced has to resolve these problems and only after that is done can we bring about change. If the people would look back at the Clinton administration they would remember that times were good, Our country had a balanced budget, the middle class was thriving and the Clinton administration left office making sure that our country had a surplus. How quickly some people forget. Hillary Clinton will be getting my vote.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  162. Michael

    Lets face it when it comes to politics most people do not spend a lot of time really looking at who they think the best president will be. Nor do they look at the fact that the people they are voting for have so much influence from big business, or if they do understand maybe they are just afraid they will be throwing their vote away on some independent that for somereason people believe can NOT win. As soon as people start thinking out side the box we can have an election out side this crapy old box !

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  163. Jack

    I don't know if we want change, I'm waiting for CNN and the rest of the media to tell me if I want change...

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  164. Chris Brown

    I think when it comes right down to it, we want change but are afraid of it. We say we want someone who will take us in a different direction but after so many broken promises to do so, we are afraid to support a candidate that might actually offer up some change. Sad but true..

    January 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  165. Nick Schaffer

    Jack, People are voting for change. The Democrats seem to be voting to change the Constitution and change the Presidency from a single executive to a husband-wife team (who have already ruled eight years). Does Chelsea need to run in 2016, or does she just inherit the position?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  166. Ernie Banks

    Does America want change? No. Do we want compromise? Yes.

    More than change for its own sake, we want Republicans and Democrats to stop the shrill partisan attacks and work out a compromise on key issues. Bush and the Democratic leaders in Congress won't compromise – and that is why their approval ratings are in the toilet.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  167. bernie

    Since Obama is running an almost identical platform as Hillary, how has he come to represent "change" that we are afraid to make? When the obama-mania dies down his lack of foreign policy experience will be glaring. When cooler heads prevail, we will remember that experience in foreign policy is crucial. If change means "same platform, same record, no experience in world affairs" then that is a change for the worse.

    If you are trying to instigate a conversation about change, maybe it is only CNN that has changed. Can't help but notice you don't play the Tony Rezco scandal on an endless loop. Your endless loop of embarrassment certainly had a hand in ruining Howard Dean's shot. You certainly couldn't get enough of Whitewater or Travel-gate.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  168. Lacey

    People want change, but it's the slick and the rich that attract them in the long run. Hillary pretends to want change, even though she manages to sound more and more like her husband every day. The longer she runs the slicker she gets. Her true colors are starting to come out, and it's a sad thought that people who complain that they want change every day won't rally behind a candidate who really is standing for change, instead they gravitate towards the person who is the great pretender of the political party.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  169. Clay

    A real change would be great, but is crazy not defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

    Louisville, Ky

    January 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  170. Dennis in Gwinn, MI

    The president can't do much without significant majorities in both houses. Doesn't matter if they are male, female, black, white or polka dot. There are no term limits and our senators and representatives are entrenched thanks to funding from special interest groups. Take a poll and see how many people think "their" representative is the problem. I think you'd be surprised at how many think it is the "other guy".
    Plus there are federal employees in all branches of government that have been there since the Kennedy years. They have domains to protect.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  171. Idabelle Hardy

    Change to what? Too many of the electorate have mindless emotional allegience to one party. If their party is in - no change wanted; if out , sure change is demanded, and the favored party should use whatever tactics are required to keep power or acquire power for their party. It takes intelligence, study, and contemplation to decide what specific changes are needed, the ramifications of those changes, and who is best qualified to effect these changes.,

    January 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  172. Jim Genandt

    I am reminded of something Dr. Deming stated years ago: "Change is not necessary, survival is not mandatory" and that is the path we are on.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  173. Joy

    Regardless of what they say, most people are afraid of change. Like the old saying, "Better the demon we know . . ." No matter how bad it is, people know what to expect with the status quo-risking something unknown is scary. It's like the wife who stays with her abusive husband instead of leaving for a new life.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  174. Rich Herzfeld

    Yes I believe we are afraid of change. Until the present situation becomes so scary that the fear of following the same path is stronger than the fear of change. I believe we have reached that point as a country. We are headed down a very unsure economic path, and those who share this planet with us are sick of our need to inject ourselves into thier lives. We need a change and a leader that can take us in a new direction and inspire us to endure whatever heartships these changes may bring.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  175. Anthony.M

    Anybody comes to power after the November elections will represent a change.
    Why, because nothing can be worse than it is now!
    And btw, all 4 leading competitors are Washington insiders. And a Washington insider can bring change; more precisely big changes.
    Here is a typical example:
    All Eastern European anti-communist revolutions of the 90ies were lead by former communists, with reformist mind and spirit.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  176. Ernie

    Could it be that people are looking for someone who has the Washington experience yet could still try to bring about change? Just because someone is a part of the Washington establishment doesn't mean that they will stick to those standards that we have seen in the past. For example, when you look at Obama, you see a guy who is promising to bring about change. But when you look at his experience, are we really ok with putting someone in charge of the United States who has had one term in Congress, most of which was spent running for president. I know that for me, at least, that is bringing up red flags all over the place. We hardly have any idea what the man even stands for, but the majority of the people who support him claim that they like him because he is "fresh." I don't think that is enough to win a presidency. Thus, people like someone such as Mccain or Clinton because we tend to know more about where they stand. Maybe I am way off, but that's the way it is for me.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  177. ram

    We hear a lot about bringing change in America. It is a risk you are taking thinking change can be always good, but we should never forget change can bring both – good as well as bad. Only the time can tell. While Americans choose their leader they should also make sure the candidate and their spouse have common decency, class, and not bad mouth with fowl degradative language for their opponants, only then and I mean only then, should they deserve to enter the White House.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  178. Filipino monkey

    2 bushes.

    1 Clinton.

    We are voting for change to even it up Jack.

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a bush".

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  179. Phyllis Hancock

    Change. This is something that America has been doing from the very beginning. The saying: Change is the only permanent thing. When change happens to fast it is difficult for people to adjust. and therefore t often fails.

    In the business world, changing ideas or products are testing before being launched. Obama needs to be tested before launching him into the highest office.
    We need to know how and what he might do. By action not words.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  180. Larry Webster

    It appears people don't want change near as much as the politicians let on they do. As you can see by the Bush poll numbers the only change they really want is for George Bush to be GONE! As far as the 4 major candidates left in this fray only Romney and McCain want to carry on his failed policies. Clinton and Obama will make history because we will either have the first woman President, or we will have the first Black President ( Bill Clinton doesn't count just ask Obama!) The only way for McCain or Romney too win is for the DNC too keep disinfranchising their own party ( aka Florida and Michigan ) but don't count that out just yet. Wasn't it 4 years ago that the DNC chair who was then running for the nomination wigged out? HMMMMMMM!!!!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  181. Ken KS

    Change? We haven't had real change since John F. Kennedy gave us hope on January 20, 1961. That hope died November 22, 1963 and except for Jimmy Carter's attempt at change in 1977 through 1980, we've had the status quo since. Media killed debate winner John Edwards hopes, and now we have four candidates who call for change but will continue to do Corporate America's bidding once elected. Maybe Simon, Paula and Randy should select our next president. Can't hurt.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  182. Prabhu


    I agree with your premise that it will not get a different result. However, Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney have realized that the American people have woken up from their apathy, the reason for the record turnout at Iowa and New Hampshire. Whoever wins, they have to rule from the middle and understands that veering to either extreme will limit them to one term President. This is the reason why Clinton and McCain are leading as they are not extremists (like W). American people have learned from their mistakes and vow not to repeat the same. They are not insane to expect a different result this time.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  183. Susan Olshan

    It's a simple answer. We are living in an aspirational culture right now where the middle class believes they are just a few right moves away from being millionaires. Rather than supporting candidates who fight for basic opportunites for ordinary citizens, we're being seduced by spin masters to elect politicians who prey on our fantasy that lower taxes will open the door to great wealth. Meanwhile, public schools and infrastructure are collapsing, senseless wars go on, medical care has become a luxury, major corporations destroy the Earth's environment with few consequences and, instead of becoming millionaires, many Americans are losing their homes.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  184. Ralph

    I think people is scare of the radicalism of candidates like Obama and Edwards and prefer more moderate candidates like Hillary and MCain.You have to be careful on what you change,not everything in our country is bad and that is why people is skeptical of the so called-change candidates.The war against Corporations is a war against the middle class, who invest heavely on stocks of those corporations.Who do they think will get damaged, the CEOS?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  185. Minda

    Change is just a word without action, it is meaningless. Contrary to the popular press nonsense, I think Hillary will bring change. Change from this administration and their wedge politics. They very thing they decry is the thing they do. They project their own prejudices on Hillary and try to attribute them to her. I just don't buy it. They use the fact that they hate and try to prove with their hate that we should all hate her just like those who do. In fact, there are not that many Hillary haters in the general public as the press would have you believe. The republicans tried to say she couldn't win in N.Y. and yet, she not only won, but won in republican leaning districts. More the next time. The press insists she is so hated but if that were true, then why does she continue to win? Sure there are the vocal few who think everyone thinks as they do, I think Hillary will in fact beat the war forever McCain and she will bring real change for all of us who want a better present, then the future will be better too, in spite of you Jack.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  186. RIC

    People like change in small doses.....too much change can be scary to some.. the current administration has been a total disaster and people see Hillary as just enough change that they can be comfortable with. Obama would bring the most change, but I think that his dose of change is a bit much for the lemmings.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  187. Mrs. Coles


    I have voted for and plan to continue to vote for "change" in every election I was eligible for since I turned 18 in 1996. However, in some elections the people who want change have not had the last say. Let's not forget the voting scandal in 2000 in which Gore really did beat Bush.

    Most minorites like myself want change but as a minority we do not have the control of the vote that the majority has. So I guess your question about voters not voting for "change" is directed to the majority.

    Philadelphia, Pa

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  188. g vaughan

    I would be more than happy to vote for change, but, there is no one to vote for.

    Unless there is an independent candidate in the coming presidential election, I, personally, will NOT be voting. There is no reason to. Everything will remain the same.

    It's a sad state of affairs that this country has no one to run for president, presently, or, in the near future!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  189. Donny, Boston MA

    Jack, It's plain and simple. Each time we vote/ask/lobby/implore/petition/strike/boycott (you get my point), the powers that be simply add a signing statement to the action, saying that they accept only what they want to in our request/passed law/demand/cohesion. That, or someone piggy-backs a tax write-off for millionaires/raise for congressmen/earmark/etc onto a bill aiding homeless kittens, and when someone responsible votes against that bill they are called a "kitten-hater" and a deplorable human being, with no one addressing the fact they got caught sneaking one by us. In short, we have grown tired of repairing our political machine.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  190. Sharon

    I think voters do want change, and I also think both Clinton and McCain could provide a change from the incompetent Bush Administration. Additionally, Obama still has a strong chance to end up with the nomination, although I'm not sure if he would truly bring anymore change than any of the other candidates (hasn't anyone else noticed that all politicians seem to say one thing before they get elected, and then do another once they get in office).

    For true change, I think voters need to realize that we need to tune in more than once every four years. We need to write to our elected officials and hold them accountable. We need to support watch dog groups to watch the lobbyists and special interest groups for us to. We need to demand that our elected officials do their jobs!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  191. Pamela

    I believe that many of the people who follow politics, read about the legislation being passed, and realized the effect our policies have on the rest of the world really do want change. However, this group of people is a small minority in America, and most of those who vote make their decision on a campaign speech given the night before an election. It is time for people to start learning about the decisions our contry makes so that they can make an informed decision.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  192. lenny johnson

    Good afternoon Jack,

    As a registered moderate Republican, I still cannot find a Republican Presidential Candidate to vote for since Reagan. Now we have a potential of a Black Man and a White Woman running and the Press has, allowed the Race Card to be a main focus on the Television screen and just wont stop bringing it up. Even tho the Clintons have toned down, the Press revives it. What does it take for the Press to look at the real issues that you often talk about. We hope there can be a change in Washington regarding: Taxes, War mongering, Non-Bids on Military and other contracts, Freedom of speech, Immigration (we all came from another Country except the Real Natives) Every application should be reviewed and No Wet Foot Dry Foot for just one Group, Secure the Border with the National Guard/Reserves instead of having them guard the spoils/interests of the Oil Kings of the Middle East. You see there is so much other things than the TV Network's ratings staying alive. Please tell CNN to stop Black/White Race Card Stories I am sick of it and I dont want to stop watching a Network I have been attached to since the first month of it's inception. Thanks for Listening

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  193. Marlos (Texas)

    Because "pedigree" (name recognition) is more important than our Nation's condition. And because more Americans vote through ignorance, rather than intelligence.
    For many American (mainly those doing most of the complaining about what is wrong) Presidential elections are more approached in terms of a popularity contest rather than an avenue to bring about changes.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  194. Mark

    Of course we want change, but it's not being offered by any of the candidates. The real question is does it matter what we want? In the past 7 years public opinion has been just that…Opinion. The "Decider" decided that what the public wanted or wants is not as important as what big oil, big business and any other lobbyist sponsored group wants. I think the kind of change we are looking for will never come about until the rules in DC are completely reversed or until we finally take our government, for the people and by the people, back into the hands of regular people. I don't see how any of the candidates are offering change, but I for one will not vote on the basis of a dream of change that I know is not realistic in today's bureaucracy. Thank you very much, but I'll stick with the issues while considering and casting my vote. Media, starting making all of them focus on the issues!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  195. Lilia from MD

    Don't pay attention to those polls, they are never accurate. Is like our weatherman, (never gets it right).

    The campain is not over, and before you know it, we maybe once and for all experiencing change.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  196. Tom

    The Democrats have voted for change. They have stated loud and clear that we need a leader with a vision. We need a person wo can unite the country to solve our problems. We need somebody who will energize the entire country for something, not against some one.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  197. Len, CT

    It is a painfull thought that we will have to choose between McCain and Clinton. It is may be a reflection of generally tired and pessimistic outlook in our country. It is a scary thought that people actually would want one of them to be our next president after 8 years of Bush. Please people, start paying attention to what they are saying and not just to their glorious past. The guy who wants to stay in Iraq untill we win the war? Are you kidding? And a lady with no agenda besides becoming first women president?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  198. Joe

    The only change I would like to see is openess and honesty in Washington. Unfortunately I will not see that in my or my children's lifetime.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  199. Jennifer Collins

    I have said this for quite some time now. If people really want change, then Clinton and McCain would not be in the running. Clinton is getting votes because people remember how much money was in their wallets when Bill Clinton was president. They are wishing for the good old days. I just wish they would take off those rose-tinted sunglasses and realize that Hilary is not Bill and Bill is not the guy we fondly remember. As for McCain.... I guess people don't care if the war continues on and on and on and on.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  200. Edwin, CA

    Let us meet change with change – Mitsubishi. he did it with gusto. Talking about change can be good if accompanied with action. Any problems associated with change should be corrected along the way. Whoever wins whether it's Obama or Hillary, it will be a breath of fresh air from the Bush or Neocon agenda. I'm voting for Hillary for we need a good fiscalizer for all the problems left behind by Bush. Obama will have his time after Hillary, incase she trips, try Obama. Therefore, my advice to Democrats, don't tear each other but help one another and give way on who is more qualified to accomplish monumental problems..

    January 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  201. geasr

    What kind of change. voters 60 and over tend to vote for clinton . the younger vote for obama. the republicians seems to vote for Mccain. the younger ones dont remember what it was like in the clinton years. so a change to what? better times i hope.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  202. Sam

    Obama is change. Paradoxically, the change that Obama represents is unnerving to some and exhilarating to others. Sadly we have lost the ability to collectively dream big. This race has boiled down to the America can once again be great camp; and the status quo decline of the hegemon is okay by me just give me my SUV and Subprime loan, thank you… camp.

    – Sam

    January 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  203. ashley

    Wouldn't a woman in the white house as president be a pretty big "change"? Or am I mistaken I my belief that Hillary Clinton is the first viable female canidate in our nation's history?

    Don't forget Jack, that women elected as leaders have made some of the biggest policy changes in the 20th century, whether those were the conservative values of Mararget Thatcher or those former prime minister Bhutto whose policies on women were revolutionary for Pakistan.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  204. Don

    If you want to see what the Obama presidency might be like, you can get a glimpse of it in MA and Deval Patrick. Deval ran an inspiring campaign, he is a great orator, he championed Change, I first heard the "Yes We Can" chant at his campaign rally. I don't know that he has been very inspiring since he won and I don't feel any Change. Maybe it is too soon for Deval, but if Obama were to become President, I would hope for a better beginning, a Change that we can feel and enjoy – I am not optimistic.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  205. bill hall

    YES but we are all too consumed by TV to get off the couch and actually do something to force it to happen. We would rather watch our reality on tv instead of actually living in our own.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  206. Rick

    We don't want change. All we have to do is look at the lifetime members of the Senate and House to know this. To hear Ted Kennedy back Barack Obama because he is the best chance for change is interesting; Kennedy has been in the Senate for over 40 years, isn't that the anti-definition of change?
    People vote for the names that they are comfortable with. They vote for their social agenda; when they find candidates that match that, they latch on to them as long as possible. The changes that overtake the American landscape are glacier-like; it changes gradually as people age or leave the political life in scandal.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  207. Phyllis Hancock

    Change. This is something that America has been doing from the very beginning. It is said that change is the only permanent thing. Anyways when change happens to fast it is difficult for people to adjust. and therefore not well received.

    In the business world, changing ideas or products are testing before being launched. Obama needs to be tested before launching him into the highest office.
    We need to know how and what he might do. By action not words.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  208. Bobby

    Tom A... you said "We truly need a viable third party candidate in this election. Al Gore, are you listening?".. Are you kidding me? He’s created what predecessors would call irrational exuberance around the idea that global warming is bad. He’s now poised to cash in on it by joining famed VC firm Kleiner Perkins (where he’ll donate a small salary but keep a big cut of the profits) and is moving his other investment firm, Generation Investment Management (how many investment firms can one man be associated with?), to a luxury “green” office building.

    Vilifying global warming is green to Al because it puts money in his pocket, but it fools economic morons and takes green out of the US economy. Al Gore has his hand in the monetary cookie jar, and he is essentially taking food out of the mouths of Americans. Please ignore washed up politicians

    Fun Fact: The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  209. Tam

    It can't just be about change. That's like saying you aren't happy with your local hospital so you're going to go to an auto mechanic to perform brain surgery on you. This isn't a job you want a novice to take on as some opportunity to learn about economics, terrorism, immigration, and education. You want someone who has some ideas to fix the problems and the experience to actually get something done.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  210. Regina

    I heard Creflo Dollar say many times, "Change isn's Change until it's Change"...the definition in the dictionary puts it one way, "different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone"..In my opinion, if Hillary Clinton or John McCain remain in Washington, this is NOT change....it would be described more as WORSE...I don't believe they are the frontrunners. I think it's what the media wants us to believe....so there you have it....All american's have is their opinion and from what you asked Jack....When it comes right down to it, why won’t we vote to really change things? Because the government doesn't care about anyone but themselves and their specialist interests (their 4 and no more), thus you have people behaving the way they do in this place they call America.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  211. Gary

    Love your question. The real answer is, we are not presented with that option.

    We are little sheep, being led by whatever the hot topic of the moment is. No one is accountable for their campaign promises, period.

    Until the people stand up and refuse to be purchased by big money, we'll have the same thing over and over again. It is not "We the people", it is "We who have the money" now. There will be no change. Why? I'll tell you why.

    Until "We the people" change, the powers that be do not need to do anything different. It works. It's a turn key model. Tell the people what they want to hear, get in office, and work your deals that you made with all the corporations that funded your way into office. I know this to be true first hand as I had a stint behind the scenes of political campaigns. I got out because I could not sleep at night and I began to feel filthy just being in their presence.

    My suggestion is start with yourself if you want change. It's your dollar that is your power. Find out who financially backed your cheating full of BS leader you voted for, and funnel your dollars in the opposite direction, and let them know it loud and clear every chance you get.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  212. J Gardner


    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  213. June

    Jack, This election is about change, not race. This country has never had a sister, sister-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, niece, grandmother, mother-in-law or mother, be Commander and Chief. Now that is change. Sorry guys there is no proof that men alone make good presidents, all the good & bad presidents were men So lets really make a change and put a women in charge. If Obrack was a women I would vote for him, if he had Hilliary's credentials.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  214. monica

    Actually, it's looking like a McCain/Obama face off. Where have you been?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  215. Matt Fuller

    We can get much worse than where we are right now, why not CHANGE!?!?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  216. GR

    We may not vote to change things, but we'll change to vote, for sure. All kinds of Democrats are going to change party for this election because they won't take a chance on a black or a woman in the Oval Office.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  217. Nick E

    Because that "Big Mac" had better look, taste & cost the same whether we get it in Waxahachie, Texas or Des Moines, Iowa. America is built on predictability, we don't want any surprises. When we open the door of a Holiday Inn, no matter which town we're in, it had better look exactly the same as the last one we slept in. Same goes for our politicians and presidential candidates.

    Maybe now would be a good time for Mike Bloomberg declare his candidacy. He could run under the slogan, "Why can't I be different and original like everybody else?"

    Nick E, Manhattan, NY

    January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  218. Denise

    Yes...I think people want change. They want to feel good about being an American again. That is certainly a change from what we currently have in this country.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  219. Matt

    I think that most people do want a change in Washington, but are scared to take the chance on someting new and exciting. I hope people realize that a great reward can come to when you take a little risk, and vote against the old Washington establishment. If noting does change then what have you really lost?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  220. Albert from Atlanta, GA

    I think people actually believe that they ARE voting to change things, but rather than do the research themselves they allow the candidates and media to tell them what they want to hear. In the end the candidate who can convince the most people that they MAY get what they want without commiting to any real change will win the ballot. And who more experienced at telling us what we want to hear than our current frontrunners.

    Power to the sheep-le!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  221. Gary Jones

    The last time people went for change and voted for an outsider, they got George Bush! Need I say more.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  222. Michael


    Yes, we want change. However, we consume so much of our time dealing with our own lives we have little left to put in for the effort required for change. True change can only happen when we come together as a nation and demand it. Unfortunately, we require inspiration either by negative events in our lives or by being moved by someone. Today we have both. Someday we will all pay for not demanding change. Global warming can be used as an analogy to our indifference to our leader’s failures. America, the greatest nation on earth will be greatly damaged, as history as proven, unless we demand change. I hope that all of us will stand up, put our prejudice away and demand a fundamental change in Washington. Vote with an understanding that it’s not just putting someone in office who can work the system, but someone who can CHANGE the system.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  223. Change NOW

    END the “same, same, same” policies NOW.

    Save lives, save your money, reduce federal debt, restore personal privacy & liberty NOW.

    A clear plan for REAL CHANGES (not just fluffy gray vision slogans) to improve lives of US CITIZENS.

    There is only one candidate with an agenda for REAL CHANGES for:
    -the economy and national debt
    -taxes and spending
    -the war and a sustainable military
    -less Federal intrusion on our individual rights and freedoms

    Join the RON PAUL r3VOLution, watch tonights debate, GOOGLE RON PAUL [he isn't typically given much time in the press or debates, so the Internet may need to be your guide]

    For a real change, vote with your conscience, not with the media. Make a real difference NOW or regret it for the next 4 (or 8) years.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  224. Joe in DE

    People are afraid of change unless they are desperate. Comes he rvolution.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  225. Wendel

    People will say they want change, but the process of change in Washington takes an insider to do it. The President must deal with the House and Senate. Change would have to sweep the entire Congress. The question is who holds the broom?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  226. Ralph

    Yea Jack,

    Americans want change, any nickle, dime or quarter they can scrape up after a failed Republican controlled 8 year Bush mess. The damness thing is, the Republicans still think handouts(taxes) which amount to pennies per months for the average Joe and millions to the wealthy are working. With 8 years of tax breaks in a row, why is our economy the strongest in the world? Americans needs an enama and a math lesson. Throw the packaderms out!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  227. Michael


    So many people say "Hilary is so polarizing that she won;t be elected.". Well, what if she does get elected? Answer: She will be so polarizing that NOTHING will get done. Period. Obama's great strength is that he can pull people together to get things done. And what about the "experience" thing? It's not an issue. By selecting bright, experienced people for his cabinet, he will be in the proper presidential role as the CEO and decision-maker of a great team.

    Michael in Tucson

    January 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  228. kentucky

    Jack, we will have major change as soon as Bush is out of the White House. The Republicans elected him not once but twice, this time I hope they all stay home, because they sure don't have any judgement. Yes, we will have change no matter what.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  229. David from PA

    I am not sure the change that we need as a country; the change that we need now; is possible with our current two party political system. The Democrats encompass too many positions, forcing all of them to compromise (leading to the status quo). The Republicans have some good positions, but turn people off with their stringent opinions on abortion and gay marriage. They overlap on nothing, they disagree on everything, so they get nothing done. I'm not saying we need a proportional representation system, but the change I want, I see in a third party. Now if only people didn't consider a third party vote a waste. Voting for who you want is never a waste! Break out of the chains of the two party system, vote for someone that actually stands for what you want!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  230. Steve Jones - Toronto, Ontario

    It is interesting watching this from Canada. Listening to John Edwards resign today, reinforced the feeling that the media drives the election process. It does not matter that Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Paul, etc. have an equal right to run, therefore an equal right to have their opinions heard. Once the media grabs hold of the candidates they think produces the most flair, they are the ones who command the debates, discussions, etc. It has nothing to do with wanting change or not. Every four years, the non-incumbent party trumpets change. It has to do with familiarity, charisma and influence – all media driven.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  231. DJ

    That's EXACTLY why I'm voting for Obama. They are basically tied nationally now, and big endorsements are coming out of the woodwork for Obama. So I reject your notion that we will not vote for something different, and I believe that on Feb. 5th you'll see that become a reality.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  232. Susan

    Change is expensive and that is why we only say the word. For this country to truly change we need to raise taxes, curb entitlements, make the rich pay more and the middle class to stop looking to government to fix all that is broken. None of the current candidates will tell you this is what is needed because they want to win. Too bad we can't find a represetative that will step up and tell us what real change would mean, and more importantly what it would cost.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  233. Erika

    I think we do vote for change, but I think most politicians only hear the views of lobbyists and those speaking on behalf of corporate America. This is not what I prefer, however. I wish that politicians would keep all the promises they make to the working middle class when campaigning for office. It would be a very welcome relief to all of us who feel the strain of this lagging economy.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  234. Chelle

    I'm a 38 y/o white woman who grew up in the heartland to republican, religious parents. For the first time I feel something besides disgust at a candidate.

    Yes we can is more than a battle cry. It's more than a hope. It's more than a political brand.

    It's my prayer for the future.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  235. Terri in Houston

    Change is an easy and catchy term for the pundits but what people really want is to be inspired and from inspiration comes a change in the way people view their circumstances and themselves which in turn changes the way we are viewed by the world. Change is too easy...lets look for inspiration through some perspiration by working together to get our credibility back!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  236. Dave in O'Fallon, IL


    When a discussion turns to politics and the November 2008 election, most people that I talk to seem to want change, real change – they want to see an end to the staid, “good ole boy” favoritism and patronization, the propensity for pet projects and pork-barrel politics, and the penchant for politicians beholden to lobbyists. Hillary Clinton may think she can bring in change to the White House, but if she is elected, there is one significant fact that she cannot change, and that is that members of the Bush and Clinton families will have been president for over 24 years and more than 116 million Americans will have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Forty percent of Americans will have never known anyone but a Bush or Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. So my vote is for Senator Obama. He represents real change, an innovative sea-change of fresh air, not the sickly stale air of “business as usual” in Washington. America needs a new face not encumbered by the lure of lobbyists, nepotism, cronyism, and “same-old, same-old” politics – not bought and paid for by the greed of giant corporations – a new face that has not sold itself to the devil of the Washington political machine, and Barack Obama is that new face.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  237. Ruben Honik

    Obama may have co-opted the word "change" as a campaign mantra but real change just means the ability to reform. Our best reformers have always come from the inside, a fact which I hope is not lost on Hillary.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  238. Gary Brown


    We, or at least I, often vote for change in casting my ballot. But mine is not a vote to change things just for the sake of changing things. It's reasoned change. We do a lot of things well in this country - technological, scientific and medical innovation for example. If change means strengthening those endeavors, balancing the buget, getting real about putting the Social Security System on a sound financial footing, and developing GOOD and SENSIBLE trade policies instead of debating free-trade vs. fair trade -I'm all for it.

    On the other hand, if change means a stronger state-run, bureaucracy-heavy, low-performing educational system; an open-door, y'all come, "they're already here so we might as well accept it" policy toward illegal immigrants; and Jerry Springer-ish norms of moral decency - keep the change.

    Who said "Democracy is the worst possible form of government - except for all others."

    January 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  239. Bob in Florida

    Most mornings for the past five years, I have read this on my refrigerator door. "All is forgiven Bill, Please come home.". That says it all. Many people remember the Clinton years as a time of peace and prosperity and are ready to have them back, even with the flaws. For many that is change enough, anything more is scary. Perhaps they are right, but I for one am ready to risk real change with Obama.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  240. tess

    if people want real change they would have voted for kuchinic or alan keyes.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  241. voter

    Change? Congress change change anything unless they hold the majority and botth the house and the senate and the same party leader. Otherwise, they have to have 2/3 majority to override the President of the opposite party.

    You can't promise change because it can not be completed without the majorities. Obama can promise all he wants.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  242. Mart from Chicago

    Just because Hillary is a Clinton doesn't mean that she will not CHANGE the country. What we want is a change from what Bush administration has brought upon America. Economy on the brink of recession, and war in Iraq with no timeline and Hillary, like Obama offers that "Change" too. The fact that she's a Clinton makes no different to my vote. So what if its Bush, Clinton, Bush & Clinton again? We, at least the majority of Americans are the ones who put Bush Jr in the white house anyways... why should Hillary be blamed and attacked by us Americans when she is as good or better even, to be the next president than the other candidates? Its just so sad how people hate Hillary just because they dont want to see a Clinton in the white house..

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  243. joseph

    OMABA represent different more then CHANGE...

    We love the familiar that is human nature, very few people LOVE change...if OBAMA would shift to the word DIFFERENT he would win in a landslide....it's easier for me to say lets do something different then it is to think about making a CHANGE....

    OMBAM 08

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  244. SS

    Politics has to be the only field where experience is a 4 letter word. In every other walk of life, we prefer the person with the most experience, why not here?

    For all those who keep repeating the change mantra, I have a 4 letter word of my own for you – B-U-S-H.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  245. voter

    Change? Congress can't change anything unless they hold the majority and botth the house and the senate and the same party leader. Otherwise, they have to have 2/3 majority to override the President of the opposite party.

    You can't promise change because it can not be completed without the majorities. Obama can promise all he wants.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  246. Jenny from New York

    I think too many people aren't interested in politics so they vote on name recognition alone. That would explain Hillary Clinton's frontrunner position. The strange thing is that exit polls overwhhelmingly claim people value change over experience. People are idiots and will get the president they deserve.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  247. sue

    I'm from MN. Wellstone represented change, Ventura represented change- not the
    career politician nor the Washington establishment. It didn't take long for either of them to recognize they need to join the rank and file to accomplish anything. So Obama's message while appealing is indeed a fairy tale, if we want real significant change there'd probably need to be a revolution because we won't get it by voting either Obama or Clinton nor McCain or Romney. We can get change from 8 yrs of a Bush administration by voting Democrat but Obama's change will be no more effective or pronounced than if we voted Clinton.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  248. Judy

    Because it takes organization to make change. Nader was trying to do just that, and what did we end up with because of it? The Bush Administration. I sent my absentee ballot with my vote for the person whom I felt was the best qualified to make the changes needed. Now he has dropped out of the race. I feel like one tiny speck in a vast universe. Will my actions send a message to the washington establishment? Probably not, but I did what I thought was right, that's all any of us can do.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  249. John from PA

    Ron Paul and Barack Obama are the only canidates left who can truly bring about significant change in this country because they aren't running on their political accomplishments, they are running on common sense.

    A side note to fellow Democrats: the Republicans WANT Hillary to run . . . so bad that it hurts. If you think Democrats are fired up now, just watch the Republicans if Hillary gets the nomination. Mark my words: Hillary Clinton will be the cause of another Republican presidency. "Go Hillary" . . .

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  250. jana

    I will vote to change things. I am voting for Senator OBAMA. I hope everyone else does the same.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  251. Jason Cardoso

    Well, right now i can´t understand what does Obama means by "change", the only thing that i know is that things were much better when Bill Clinton was president, i´m not a Kennedy, i´m just a simple human being who wants to live better so, if someone cares i don´t want "obama's change" and I endorse Hillary Clinton

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  252. Julie VanDusky

    Who said Obama had a monopoly on change? While the specifics may differ, Hillary and Obama basically want to make the same changes- universal health care, help the lower and middle classes, and end the war in Iraq. So if they want to change the same things, why is Obama touting that he is the agent of change in this election? Is he implying that he is the only person who can make those changes? Does he honestly think his 2 years in the Senate makes him more qualified than Hillary's 8 years in the Senate and her many years as an extremely active First Lady? He must be very full of himself.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  253. Melanie

    I am truly saddened that people would be afraid of change, – specifically when they know what we have is not working. Furthermore, I am saddened by politicians like McCain, Clinton and Lieberman, persons so determined to win at any cost and misread the need for statesman who are not just domesticate or foreign affairs equipped. Let us face it, globally and those serving in our military have made it clear that President Obama is the person who can effectively get things done. It requires a new type of interfacing with the world, not the face of combat, which we get from Senator Clinton, nor the face of "as-long-as-necessary" at the risk of our tenuous economy, as trumpeted by McCain. Here at home, it requires more than the usual line item ticked off the to-do-list. It takes a whole nation recognizing that it can reach for great accomplishments. For the last thirty years all the nation has been good for is "working to pay the proverbial bill;" not reaching for anything magnificent as say flying to the moon... come on... why should the nation remain complacent and apathetic... move it... remember there is a thing called community... Thank you Mr. Obama... and thank you for that matter, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney, and Mr. Paul at least you all bring something to the table!!!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  254. Greg, Pennsylvania

    As we should have learned from the past with Jimmy Carter, for example; he was a truly honest man, exactly what people were looking for as a change after all the mire of the Nixon years. But what happened, he was an "outsider" and could not effectively get anything real done. Which is why he was a one and done President. It was not because he was not a great choice.

    This year, our country is in worse shape on so many fronts than we were when Bill Clinton took office in 1992. He was a very effective President, he turned this country around to the dismay of the right-wing political machine. Does it not make sense that an experienced, tested person such as Hillary Clinton is not the right prescription for what ails us? Does anyone really believe that Barrack Obama is even capable of fixing this mess? Remember, he is a rookie senator who has spent most of his time in DC working on becoming President and not even doing a great job as a senator.

    We do not a President who requires "on the job training". As Mrs. Clinton so elegantly puts it...we need someone who can hit the ground running on day one! And, that takes a good amount of experience! A change in direction from the failed Bush-era policies is exactly the CHANGE I, and many other americans are looking for. Whether everyone likes it or not, it took a Clinton to get us out of the first Bush (and Reagan) mess and it's going to take a Clinton to get us out of this even more catastrophic mess!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  255. Jerry

    Bush was a change and look at how bad change can be!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  256. David A. Brown

    We will NEVER have change until we all agree to clean house. We could completely replace every single Congressman and a third of all Senators every two years. This alone would scare the rest of the political world remaining to death. Then and only then would we have the chance of having a government that conforms to our will and looks after our interests.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  257. Ron

    Change requires people without a long history of experience and who have a new and fresh view on things. People who willing to do something different. Experience just means that you are used to doing things a certain way and you will always continue to do them that way because you know you are right. AT least all of our politicians think they are right. We need our elected officials be judged the same way working people are. If you are not doing the job, you get fired. We need a government review board who reviews the job every elected official is doing and has the power to fire them on the spot if they are not doing the job. Every 2, 4 or 6 years is too long to perform a job review especially by people by people who call themselves conservatives, liberals and independents but don't know what the meaning of those words are or what the stand for. I vote for you to head the elected officials job review board with the power to fire on the spot.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  258. Pragmatist

    The question is not just "change" but change from what to what. Right now civil liberties are in danger, our reputation in the world is tarnished, business is being deregulated, banks are predatory, women's rights are under attack, people don't have health care. The list goes on. Electing Hillary Clinton would be a huge change because she would fight to change these problems. The Republicans have blocked all progressive reforms for the last twenty years, and Bush reversed so many of the progressive reforms Democrats fought for in the 20th century. Electing another Clinton doesn't mean "the same old thing." George Bush and Bill Clinton are different like night and day. Hillary would be even more different than George Bush or any other Republican but not because of who she is as a person. Electing a Democrat with a Democratic Congress is what will produce real change.

    Real change is not a face or a name. It means policies, laws and programs that change real people's lives.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  259. California voter

    Jack "change" for the sake of "change" does not always portend good things. One must go beyond the slogan and look at what the "change" is all about. For example, Barack Obama has as part of his mantra the word "change" . How can he say he is a change agent when he brings in the old liberal democratic crowd in. Does anyone think Senator Kennedy is looking for a change in his way of thinking? I don't think so. Voters should be looking for the best, most well-qualified candidate - not just for "change. " Did you every hear of the old saying of from the "frying pan into the fire". Change can be good or bad.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  260. Dave

    You've hit the nail on the head. People want change, and nothing short of a revolution in terms of who is sent to Washington will cause that to happen. Ironically, the person who has the fullest resume of bringing positive change to organizations just took second in Florida.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  261. Diana in Clermont


    Hillary brings both sides of the issue to the table.

    You can't ask for more change than having the first woman President of The United States of America and yet she has the experience that is necessary to run this great county of ours.

    Go Hillary!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  262. Stephen, Wilmington, NC

    People for the most part are scard of change. They say they want change but do nothing about it. Congress is a good example, we know that Congress is full of crocked politicians but yet we keep electing them. It's a shame but we have giving over our choice to decide to the media. People are to lazy to investigate the candidates themselves so the depend on the media to tell them who to vote for. I hope one day WE THE PEOPLE will take back control of our country.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  263. vincent

    Americans are afraid of the type of change that the question implies. we have lived wtih the politics of fear and divisiveness for more than 200 years and even though we yearn for change our fears won't let us achieve it. The question appears not to be between the candidates. all of thier views are relatively the same whether Republican or Democrat the question is whether for once in the history of America are we going to live or even try to live up to the expectations that most of us learned in 5th grade american history. "We hold these truths to be self evident"

    January 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  264. Michaelsviews

    Heres my take on the whole thing, Hillary if elected will run the country the same as it has been done in the past 8 years with the Bush's , its amazing that Bush senior had allot more going for him than his son does. From 9/11 and on the Bush name has been dragged through the mud, conspiracies and this and that. I wont get into the war because every one has there own take on it. Mine is " well you'll have to wait for my book " Anyways if Clintons are back in the white house, I for one do not see this country getting better fast. They can stand on there pulpits and say what they say but when its all said and done and your in office and the lobbyists and corrupt officials have more influence than you do as the President of the US, what are you going to tell the American people than?

    Its all HYPE talk the talk but can they walk the walk and make what they say NOW happen when elected. Can anyone of them HONESTLY say there going to 100% follow through and make things happen and change take effect, NOW not in 3 to 4 years but now.?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  265. Max Cremer

    I've got this cartoon in my mind's eye: First two panels McCain and Clinton on the stomp, behind the podium all their wildly gesticulating supporters, identified with placards as various DC insiders (lobbyists, financial backers, establishment of one kind or another). Third panel Obama, same foreground, but behind the podium just three solemn figures: The two dead Kennedy brothers, and MLK.
    True change in this country appears not only difficult to achieve, but downright dangerous.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  266. JayC

    As long as Bush is out of office, then thats all the change I need.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  267. Sandra H

    Jack, Im confused.
    How can you vote for change ( example-OBAMA) when we have no idea what will be changed?
    All his blogs ask him his platform and he has not shown it .
    I'd be very afraid to vote for a man who won't tell the electorate his plans
    and relys on the REBEL attitude of our young children who lead him blind to vote him in .
    Is it possible his plans do not involve anyone other than his own rise to power?
    I see another George Bush "The Almighty Dictator " if Obama is voted in .

    January 30, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  268. Jon

    Hey Jack,

    Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the ACTUAL delegate count – OBAMA is ahead. Now, check out the polls for Super Tuesday, Obama is riding a huge change in many of the states. He is an agent of change that resonates anywhere he campaigns. With the recent endorsements, he will be the Democratic nominee, and of course, president. Is that enough CHANGE for you?

    The times, they certainly are a changin' !


    January 30, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  269. Matt

    Not sure why people say they want change but are voting for McCain and Billary. Although, I also don't understand why Billary is the front runner since Obama has more delegates at the moment.

    I see it like this. If Obama loses to Billary then it creates a real opportunity for an independent to grad the middle and those who really want something different. If that is how it shakes out I think Mike Bloomberg will get into the game as a privately funded independent with more money than god. Bloomberg could really have an opportunity to win the general because he is not foreced into a box by the Democratic and Republican party platforms which both have some good ideas. He can freely discuss ideas from both sides as well as some new ones which could really get people interested. I also think that if the economy continues to worsen his chances get even better because he is such a great business person.

    If Obama beats Billary in the Primary I think he wins the general in a landslide because he will get all Dems (Left and Middle) as well as some Repubs who are unhappy with the party. This is why Bloomberg will only jump in if Billary wins.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  270. Donna F

    Change is a pretty general term.....if that means improvements, less waste, a balanced budget, a stong military, good health care, good schools...then what is so new about wanting that?
    Does is take a dreamer or hoper, or does it take a doer, a fighter....maybe some of each....but at this time with so much that is really complicated I prefer experience and that means Hillary or John. I do not really care about the party at this time and I remember Camelot...it was a play with an unhappy ending....
    Too much has been left unclear about Mr. Obama and the other two have lttle to wonder about.
    Too much has been laid on Bill Clinton and too much time taken trying to pretend Obama is not black...if we do not care, and I do not, then just let it go for pete's sake.
    I think it has been more about gender and see that Hillary really gets the lions share of bad press.
    Read a piece by Ted Widham in the Washington Monthly if you want a clearer picture about why JFK was JFK and why Obama is not. And, remember so far more Kennedys support HIllary and Ted does not have much sway with me....I remember his misadventures too...his work in the Senate I chalk up to payback for his misdeeds.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  271. ben

    I really don't think so!The american people ask for change but seem scared to vote that way! The home of the coward, land of the slave! These so called represenatives don't represent the common folk and never will! Why'll they sit with there health insurance and healthy salaries they lie and say they feel our struggle! Yeah right! Hillary, what are you having for dinner? Mr.McCain did you recieve a termination notice on your gas bill! They are as common as Trump's comb over!!!!

    January 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  272. Ernest Rajakone, 9th Grader

    Do the voters want change–with barring a sudden suge in President Bush's popularity the vorets most definately want change. But the true question of this election as any is if you want change...what sort of change do you want? With Hillary Clinton you get the experienced candidate who can play the came and orchestrate change. In Barack Obama you get a candidate with youthful hope and optimism who inspires America to change. In John McCain you have a moderate adn experienced candidate who like Hillary knows how to play the game. In Mitt Romney you have the complete outsider who will attempt to change all of Washington he can get his hands on. But Republicans must be wary...if they don't distance themselves enoguh from President Bush to win the general election but stay close enough to the President to rally the base...the party controlling the White House will change for sure.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  273. dan

    When it comes right down to it, why won’t we vote to really change things?

    1) People are afraid of change.
    2) People are told to be afraid.
    3) Because, deep down, we love wasting tax-dollars and enjoy political corruption.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  274. Thought Prysm

    Because votes don't make changes. We live in a republic, elected officials make our decisions for us. No legislation will ever be passed that will change the way our government ultimately runs. And no official would ever vote for a bill that would take money out of his pocket, or worse, put him out of a job. Democracy is an illusion. The democratic process has been indoctrinated into us since we are small children. We are taught half truths about our history in order to instill nationalism and a sense of comfort. We want to believe that by voting we can make a difference. Maybe to a small degree it can. But the kind of change you're talking about requires more effort than just going to a voting booth.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  275. Julie VanDusky

    How can you advocate change on the one hand and then want to work with the right and bring the country together? Isn't pandering to the right what we've been doing for 8 years? If we want change, we should vote for the person with a backbone, who will stand up to the right.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  276. Qwami

    Ask the pple of the US..why they are scared to clean house and change but quick to go to other countries and change them!! Hypocrisy..

    An interesting thing is about to happen in this lifetime,,,,as America loses it hold on the world as an economic power, so will the outcome of this LEGACY election if the clintons return or any recycled old hand return lead to a loss of political wherewithal .....

    January 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  277. John Leckey

    The old experienced people know how the system works. They know what you can do and what you can't. They have learned through years of work that looking for too much leads to nothing.
    The young are stupid. they don't know that you can't do it.
    You can't believe in good and honor and doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing.
    Maybe this will be the greatest gift George Bush will give us.
    The nerve to overcome our fears of the unknown and take a chance.
    Take a shot America, vote for Obama.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  278. Parrish (Atlanta, GA)

    What this says is that American's are easily duped. We complain about the goings on in Washington ad nauseum yet when the time comes to actually do something about it we fall for the same rhetoric year in and year out. Just like when we re-elected Bush in '04, we get what we ask for.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  279. Steve H

    As you've seen over the past month, there's people who will vote for a candidate that they personally identify with. For them, in their belief, they can rest assured just because the candidate doesn't have much of a track record, and won't go into any depth about specifics on how they'll deal with the pressing issues, the hard questions, and these voters are more than satisfied when the candidate just mentions these problems as footnotes, and while glossing it over with all the right words people like to hear in the name of change. Once in the White House, would this candidate need a few dry-runs before the bureaucrats in Washington see things his way, to even begin to chip away at a problem?
    There are other people who see that a candidate has a long history in the White House, and yet still gets the brush-off by pundits who call her a robot of the status quo, which is unfortunate considering when you want to make a change, you need to know exactly what it is you want to change, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This candidate would vacate all those who hold positions that are, in her best judgement, just in the way, and replace them with competent officials she can count on.
    If you're so hell-bent on radical change, and electing the guy who seems to have all these issues solved as easy as pie, then ask him what ingredients he's using.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  280. Diane Freeman

    Why do you insist that Barack Obama is the only one who can effect change? Just because Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, we have never had a female President who will bring an entirely different perspective to the White House. I think Hillary is more a change agent than Barack Obama.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  281. Tom Bulger

    It is human nature to fear change. Released convicts will commit a crime and go back to prison to avoid change. That's why Obama says, "Dare to Believe." Believing in his and our ability to restore America is our get out of jail free card. WE have the ability to save America, do we have the guts?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  282. Paulette Bent

    First of all Jack,WHO is really offering change? Kennedy mentoring Obama certainly isn't change. That would be like Cheney/Bush. Times were good when Bill Clinton was in office and I believe that Hillary does know how to manipulate Washington politics to serve the American people. McCain most definitely is old guard and I do not think the best our nation has to offer. Elect a woman- that's change.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  283. Amanda

    I disagree that Clinton is the apparent front runner. I think she's digging a deeper and deeper hole for herself and is about to fall in it. The election on the democratic side is still very dynamic and changing , and I think it is premature to declare a front runner.

    More people have voted for change (Edwards or Obama) than for Clinton.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  284. Mary

    I don't think that most of us understand or could comprehend just how big and monolothic our governenment really is. I think that most of us don't understand that – no matter who gets elected – its still a machine based on "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", "quid pro quo" and "you support my bill and I will vote for yours".
    We try to rely on the news to give us the highlights of what we need to know, but the news isn't even unbiased anymore. They have to make money, too. Some of us even get our news from several sources so that we might be able to get some kind of unbiased reporting.
    What will REALLY happen if Hillary does as she says and eliminates the oil company subsidies? Won't that make gasoline go to $5, $6, $7 a gallon? I wish we could have some kind of shows on TV that would tell us the ramifications of both sides of an issue. It sounds great that Obama wants to seek a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants – but what are the pros and cons and costs and ramifications of doing so.
    I, personally, am not afraid of change – but I like to know what I am getting into. I like to find out as much as I can so that my choice to change (or not) is an informed one.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  285. Max

    People end up voting for the "same old folks" instead of for change for a very simple reason. The word "change" is not well enough defined for the voters. Take Barack Obama for example: He likes to talk about "change" in every speech he makes. However, he is completely vague about what means in an Obama administration. Certainly being the first African American president would be a change, but beyond that there is too little about what his policies are and how they would bring about change. Hillary on the other hand is familiar to all of us. We all know where she is coming from based on her history. This is also why it is so obvious and awkward when she occaisionally tries to pose as something we all know she is clearly not (such as when she tries to quote scripture and come off as religious when speaking in front a group at prayer breakfast). I don't know exactly what her faith is or how deep it runs but when she says "This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it" we can't help to cringe just a little because we know its as awkward and incongruous as seeing Dukakis riding on an Abrams battletank. Nevertheless, because we know her general stances on things, she has been able to do well so far in the nomination race. On the Republican side, Romney and McCain have yet to have their final battle. I think the hesitation that voters have against Romney have more to do with his being a Mormon than anything else. McCain is a Republican but doesn't carry religious baggage like Romney and Huckabee that might scare off swing voters. But the Republican nomination race has further to go in my opinion than the Democrat race. In the end I believe that Hillary will attract more swing voters than Obama. The real question will be whether she can beat McCain or Romney in a general election. If Romney gets the nomination then I think that will be a strong indication that the electorate may vote for change after all. Romney has an impressive record of accomplishment, especially in turning dysfunctional companies around. Romney also comes with a political philosophy that clearly conservative yet pragmatic. McCain will always have his war record, which is beyond reproach, but does he really offer anything different from the Democrats? Frankly, if McCain gets the nomination then a Clinton vs. McCain election will be mostly form over substance. Clinton or McCain would probably have identical policies once in office regardless of what they say on the campain trail.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  286. Jason


    Something that Wolf pointed out last night really stuck in my craw. According to exit polling from the Republican voters in Florida they voted for McCain because they "liked" him. Well if I remember people voted for Bush because he was "the guy they wanted to have a beer with". We saw how well that worked out didn't we? How about the 10 term congressmen who knows history, politics, economics, foreign policy – how about voting for COMPETENCE for once! Go Ron Paul

    January 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  287. Phil

    Ofcourse we want change unless you don't mind paying $3.00 for gas and facing foreclosure. We want change like a baby wants his dirty diaper changed.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  288. LDR

    The country deserves and needs change. Unfortunately, change should begin with the way we elect and finance our political leaders. The two-party system makes it impossible for people with good ideas like John Edwards and others to succeed. We are left to support the candidates that represent the best of the worst. It's time for us to elect candidates who are not afraid to REALLY stand up to the big interests and defend the majority of Americans (who depend on their weekly paychecks to survive.) We, as citizens of this country, need to begin to realize that we are being short-changed and must stop acting and voting as millionaires...until then, nothing will change.

    Amherst, MA

    January 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  289. Bob in MA

    I believe that most folks don't like the way things are. But our democratic institutions have been drained of a sense of community, really any kind of trust.

    I can vote for a future where we are all better off. But if I do that and at the same time you and yours vote for your narrow self interest, you get yours and I get [expletive deleted].

    Without community to anchor us, fear can be driven easily by those with narrow interest and deep pockets.

    The academics call this the "prisoners' dilemma." It's the way things work without trust or community.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  290. Chuck

    The reason we will have no change is because the electoral process has been reduced to a personality driven dog and pony show with the corporate media talking heads as ringmasters. When someone like Dr. Ron Paul has the temerity to actually talk about real issues like monetary policy, the loss of our civil liberties or the moral bankruptcy of preemtive war, he is ridiculed and tuned out.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  291. Sam

    People might say they want change, as that's the new buzz word, but in reality, what they really want is stability. Change for the sake of change, is a frightening concept. What we need in these trying times is a leader who have weathered the storms and battle scars to show. The new kid on the block definitely has it's charm and excitement, but being the leader of the free world is not for the ill-prepared. This is not a job you can learn about from reading books or watching cpan. Understanding the inner workings of a complex and often disfunctional beast (aka government) is definitely an asset of immeaurable value. Something that can't be discounted or overlooked.

    In the end of the day, the value of any president is what they can do for the country. Getting the job done and showing results is far more important than who can deliver the best speeches. I'd take a detail oriented, hands on, workhorse for a president any day.

    I've already had my fill on jumping on new trends. With a proven quantity, you know your downside.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  292. John Rowe

    The change we need is to change the political system that pits one party against the other, supported by corporate and union money, and run by legislators who want life time employment. We need term limits, publicly funded elections that last no longer than 120 days, and multi-party politics that will require compromise. Until that happens we will not have any meaningful change.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  293. Julie VanDusky

    Change is not always a good thing. There are some things that I think should stay the same, like our funding for space exploration through NASA. Obama wants to "change" that by reducing its funding for 5 years. Hillary wants to maintain it and encourages the advancement of scinece. In that particular issue, I'm proud to say I support the status quo.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  294. Packy

    I have been a voter since 1968 and really haven't seen change. Whether we beat on Nixon or Carter, Reagan or Clinton I haven't seen real change in my life. I have bought houses, cars, food, vacations and toys over the years with no real change to my life at the grass roots level. Sure, we Americans love to hate the Carters or the Reagans but it all runs good thanks to the founding fathers and the inspiration of the three branches of government where checks and balances prevail.
    If we Americans REALLY want change then we need to get away from the two party system where the good old boys and girls prevail. Why do we believe that we can't have more than two parties in this country? By voting in the same old Republicans and Democrats we promote the Washington Club where they tell us what we want to hear but grow richer at everyone's expense. We have been lead down the path by our noses for generations. If there is no change than it's our own damn fault!
    Then again, what change would the average American want? Do we want to upset the status quo? I'd say life is pretty good in America as long as I see the stock market making money and weight loss commercials all over TV.
    Change? Why would we want that?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  295. Craig

    The answer to your question is complicated, and I think a lot of comments have touched on several parts of it. Here's my two cents: When you have a wealthy establishment and a news media that shapes the narrative around what this establishment wants it to be about, left versus right, you end up with the Ancient Roman "Greens versus Blues" mentality. It isn't about voting your conscience, no matter the outcome. It's about backing a winner. Candidates that represent true change have it tough for the same reason third-party candidates have it tough... people in general (while there are exceptions) don't want to vote for someone that's not going to win... as though if I cast my vote for the winner, he/she is going to somehow represent me MORE than if I hadn't.

    I don't think when you talk to people individually that this would seem to be the case, but it is certainly supported by the larger trend throughout history.

    January 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  296. Will in Seattle

    McCain may be the front runner in Florida, where the very old voters see him as a spring chicken, and Sen Clinton has her old-people base, but in the rest of America most voters haven't decided on either the GOP or the Dem front-runner.

    Now, can the media please tell us SOMETHING about the candidate's policies and viewpoints, and less of this horse race garbage?

    January 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm |