Those here are so super sensitive. Criticism can be productive. ? / Here is a critique of the US Democratic presidential race, I have been searching for. I hope these criticisms improve their campaigns. I just find the phrase agent of change hokey. I am sick of it. I require a candidate of substance. Even though, we will be behind them come November, We are sick of 'agent of change.' and all the big three mimic this crap. Are Americans so taken by meaningless logos? We will stay with our candidate of substance. Kucinich. If not for Kucinich, all we'd hear is change, change, change. Enough already.
$$$
by Bill Boyarsky.
Hopefully, the results of the New Hampshire primary will eliminate Barack Obama’s use of the vague and misleading words hope and change in his presidential campaign.
With early contests finished in two small states with disproportionate influence—New Hampshire and Iowa—we move into bigger states more typical of the rest of the country. But even if the two small states are untypical, lessons can be drawn from them, particularly from New Hampshire.
The most important to the Democrats is to avoid a campaign like Obama’s, built on his soaring words of hope and change.
I’ve been put off by those words, which became the centerpiece of Obama’s campaign. Maybe I am too cynical or too old or too disillusioned from being burned by past failed crusades. But words and elevated oratory are not enough for me. Nor were they enough for New Hampshire Democrats.
They wanted substance. Although the unemployment rate is not especially high in New Hampshire, too many jobs are in low-pay retail and service and have small or no health insurance benefits. A union leader in Concord, N.H., told me that many of the state’s residents have to work two or three jobs. Sen. Hillary Clinton, ridiculed by her many critics for policy-heavy speeches and question-and-answer sessions, was in sync with voters facing an uncertain economic future.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080111_hoping_for_change/