"Change change change, change..." trans: "Words can inspire, man..."

Recently I was given the opportunity (mostly due to boredom at the current TV writer’s strike) to watch the latest Democratic Primary campaign. I was anticipating an amusing debate, full of promises incapable of being kept and rousing rhetoric designed to stir the populace like Tom Cruise at the mere mention of the word “Ritalin.”

Allow me to say, I was deeply disappointed on both counts.

That’s not to say that the debate was not amusing. It most certainly was. But from what I saw, there was very little made in the way of hollow campaign promises. An electorate expects its candidates to stand by ideals and philosophies that the harsh practical world of American politics cannot possibly allow them to keep. That way, when they don’t follow through on the platforms upon which they were elected, our anger is justifiable. Instead of unfeasible plans regarding universal healthcare, tax cuts for the middle class, global warming and the socialization of everything, I was presented with Charles Gibson offering up the candidates the shocking truth that there has been progress in Iraq, and wondering what their stances were. I seem to recall each and every one of them towing the party line and declaring that the war was a failure, and that they would bring set immediately timetables, regardless of the consequences.

But it was this refusal to even admit the possibility that our government and military are competent, this refusal to do an about face on their beliefs in regards to the war, this refusal to even consider changing their minds that made the rhetoric less rousing and much more eyebrow raising.

The question of the Democratic primary has been “who is the candidate of change?” Each Democrat has done nothing more than throw their hat into the proverbial ring while screaming at the top of their lungs “I’m all about change!” The belief that changing for the sake of change is a good thing is frightening enough, but to have a group of people who want to be our commander in chief sitting around arguing like a group of school children is downright embarrassing and awfully hard to watch.

Rather than each putting forth their best attempt at a moving rhetoric that could inspire the people to at least agree with them on the basis of their ability to put together a sentence, the candidates chose to do nothing more than spit out that nasty little word which by the end of these elections will have become all but meaningless. Watching them debate on the merits of their ability to make change led me to the conclusion that either they were going to take on new careers as clerks at convenience stores or that Charlie Gibson had put something in their water. Maybe that’s why he had them sit through the course of the debate.

All jokes about intoxicated presidential hopefuls aside (I’ll come back to that later), I couldn’t help but think that they weren’t so much trying to move the American people as they were trying to make themselves look less foolish than their opponents. Good for them Bill Richardson was still in the race at that time. His presence was able to help them alleviate that particular fear. But let’s go back to change for a second.

Hilary Clinton had her “change” moment when she exploded into a fiery ball of change, ranting and raving about her 35 years of working for change. That’s an awful lot of change. One is left to wonder what exactly she changed in that time. No doubt it was her name that she changed, from Rodham, to Rodham-Clinton, to Clinton, and even to that short period where she was short on cash, sold her name on eBay and became Hilary Rodham Applebee’s. She’s definitely changed her place of residence, from Arkansas to Washington D.C. to New York State. And she without a doubt changed people’s minds about how heartless she is when she almost allowed a tear to run down her cheek prior to the New Hampshire primary. Whether or not that is a strong record of change, I’ll leave to the voters.

John Edwards sounded no less childish when he made the initial comment that sparked Hilary’s “35 years” tirade, bemoaning the attacks on change made by the “forces of status quo.” One is left to wonder if these particular forces are as well organized as the al Qaeda, the 9/11 perpetrators (the real ones, you know, the government. Just ask some Ron Paul supporters about it. More on that next time.), or the vast right wing conspiracy that attempted to bring down President Clinton after the Oral Office affair. Either way, I kept expecting Mr. Edwards to counter Mrs. Clinton’s remarks with the striking blow of “If elected, I’ll change change like change has never been changed before.” Instead, he continually tried to drag Mr. Obama down into the mud with him.

But Barack Obama was having none of that. Instead, he decided to bask in the euphoria brought on by Charlie Gibson’s spiked water. In fact, he was so wonderfully tapping the sixties hippy living inside of him that the he decided to metaphorically slug things out by snapping back at Hilary’s comments with a very biting, “You know, words actually do inspire.” The only thing separating Obama from the beatniks in that one moment was the exclusion of the word “man” from the end of that sentence.

I am, of course, being facetious, because not even the well spoken Barack Obama, with all his shallow rhetoric, could possibly be free from the great change machine. Even Bill Richardson, who spoke perhaps two or three times throughout the entire course of the debate (once to ask why he was even there, as he clearly had no reason to still be in the race) could not help but bang the drum of change like the rest of candidates, leaving one to wonder just how much change anyone can really bring into a Washington D.C. so firmly entrenched with career politicians who are only really concerned with keeping their jobs, not with actually doing any work.

Especially when you consider that these candidates all come from that same background. Also, to note, the word “change” was used 79 times during the last debate.

Next time: What the hell is wrong with the Republican candidates?