Change is good. Change is natural. Change is necessary.
If you believe in evolution, the physical and intellectual development of man is the result of steady, persistent change and adaptation. If you are a Christian, your world view is shaped by the belief that people can change through the regenerative salvation offered by the death of Jesus. If you are stopped at toll booth with a wallet full of singles, you, too, know that change is a must.
Our country was born of a desire and need for change. Our Constitution was almost immediately changed with the introduction by James Madison of the Bill of Rights during the very first congress in 1789. Ironically, the Bill of Rights purposed to set limits on what the federal government can and cannot do in regard to personal liberties. Our initial instinct as a nation was to limit what the government can do thus freeing the people to do more. “Yet, Here we are, darling,” as Edna Mode noted in The Incredibles.
Candidate Obama promised change but making good on the changes he favors requires something other than change; in fact what it requires is expansion of the status quo—more federal government, more spending, more misunderstanding of the peoples’ desires. The fallacy of federal policy, though, is wrongly set only on the front steps of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The Instruments of Inertia currently taking up space in the Capitol, regardless of Party, are equally guilty of the toddler’s lament: “More, more, more,” said the baby.
With our federal government, as well as most state governments, struggling to make ends meet, it is time to rethink approaches to fiscal policy, the delivery of government services, and the blurred line between want and need. Michigan’s Governor, Jennifer Granholm, has noted that “People have come to expect that government was going to be a certain way and we’ve had to press the reset button on our economy and our government.” Regardless of what she and the Mitten’s elected representative implement, the retreat of government should be a welcome occurrence worthy of 49 plagiarists, nay 50 as we include the Federal Cancer.
Our government—genius as it is—had one undergirding assumption, long since vanquished to the ashbin of quaint erudition: an involved citizenry. Save the Electoral College—a monument to the founder’s fear of exactly the kind of political buffoonery running amok in polling stations today—the founders assumed that Americans would always be as passionate about participation as our pilgrim paternity.
Today, though, a small group of citizens tired of being ignored has birthed the Tea Party dalliance. The real shame of the effort has been the decided lack of specificity and blatant willingness to sacrifice that could have been so effective if shouted through the bullhorns vice angry slanders of ineptitude. Where is the expressed willingness to see that which benefits us individually returned to the state for the good of citizens at large? “You’re an idiot! Do things differently,” is almost certainly going to be less effective than, “I’ve asked for too much in past and you’ve given it to me. I don’t want it anymore, please stop.” The hypocrisy in the cry for smaller government undermines any strategy to see it sired.
This is a great time to ask for less as we are already learning to shackle our desires in the midst of the prolonged economic down turn. The fiscal crisis facing the feds and the states is an opportunity to shrink budgets, services and entitlements and we (The People) ought to not only allow it, but encourage it. In the American tradition of the ancients we ought to insist on tight quarters for legislative spendthrifts and fill the void with our own delayed gratification and increased sense of charity.
We have the ability to make government’s job really easy—by asking for less and doing more.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
