Change as a campaign theme

USAToday (Jan. 15) reports "demand for change," "change directions," "new course," "major shake-up," and "call for change"--whimpers from the electorate it anecdotally interviewed. Why? How old are these people? Ten? It's got to be the silliest one word mantra I've heard. We've had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1988, and Hillary is preaching change!

Barry Obama's cute and a good orator. So what is change-worthy about that? A politician's song and dance. What's new? Just because George W. Bush wasn't fluent, doesn't mean you fall all over yourself for mellifluous tones and call and response rhythm.

And why would we elect a trial lawyer who's Johnny-one-note on universal health care when trial lawyers are one of the reasons our medical cost are so high and people are leaving the medical profession. "Change" he says, so everyone can have Medicaid level health care instead of just the poor.

And why would we elect a man whose idea of "change" is to trade in wife #1 for a trophy wife--someone younger, richer and more svelte or blond than the first (or second, in Rudy's case).

Why should we elect from a group of senators who now claim "change" for the social security system they haven't looked at seriously in 8 years, who have failed to stop the AMT, a very punitive tax originally set up to catch 155 rich folk and now affects millions, and haven't stopped the earmarks going to their colleagues in their "scratch my back" but don't change now schemes.

Why would we expect change from senators or governors who don't think it is important to secure our borders, or to have an ID to vote, and who see no reason not to continue luring Mexican citizens here with promises of social benefits like education, health care, housing, etc.

None of these candidates, Republican or Democrat, fit my definition of "change," so I haven't even considered that as a requirement.