According to a recent Gallup poll, seventy percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, compared to 27 percent who think things are cool and the usual 3 percent who have no opinion on the subject. Other polls show similar results, and the media have translated this mood of discontent into a cliche that 2008 will be a "change election."
The article linked above deals with the manner in which the various candidates are trying to sell themselves as agents for change.
The Repub who is the current flavor of the day, Hucklebuck, looks to me like the poster boy for the status quo. In 2000, we turned the White House over to an unqualified, inexperienced governor who thought he was on a mission from God, but was perceived as a good ole Southern boy. Do we really need four more years of that crap ?
The same goes for Mormon Mitt, McCain, Rudi, and Ferd. If any one of the four has budged an inch from the conventional GOP orthodoxy of illegal immigrants as the source of all problems and tax cuts as the solution to all problems, I'm not seeing it. Been there, done that.
On the Dem side, the presumed frontrunner all those months had gender going for her as a credential for change, but that was more than offset by her last name and that bubba by her side. Twenty years of Bushes and Clintons is plenty. Obama is the embodiment of change, but you can make the case that he would be too much change, too soon, for your average American voter.
What it looks like to me is that the public may have a big appetite for change, but unless they're ready to do something radical, they aren't gonna get it. The election could become interesting in spite of itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment