All our candidates are offering sweeping change, not just Obama. What a crock by all of them

Yup, they all are passing themselves off as the candidate of change, although "change" is the Obama's campaign's official logo, and he is very inspiring when talking about it.

It's only natural that change is this year's theme, too, just like it's a major theme in every election. It always is, but this time the overwhelming failures of Bush have made it even more significant, and the candidate who talks about change the best will probably become the Democratic nominee this year.

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised us change, too, and we all believed her. Look what we got. We got anything BUT change. Instead of change, we got more of the same...more of Bush's policies, more troops in Iraq, more war, and worst of all, more funding. Wow, you would think the Republicans are still in control of Congress the way things have changed so little.

It'll be nice if Hillary, Obama, or Edwards gets elected, but don't go counting on any sweeping changes by any of them, not when we're already hearing from them how they want to work so closely with Republicans if they get elected, especially Obama and Hillary. I like Obama and Hillary, but gimme a break. We are not going to get real change by wooing the other side just to get elected. That in itself reeks of getting more of the same old/same old.

The only way this country will ever get any real change is when it's ready to elect someone like Dennis Kucinich, who doesn't tiptoe around the issues and who will never compromise with the other side for sake of getting elected. I'm not saying it has to be him in particular, but someone like him. I know a lot of people here don't like him, but if you're going to talk about change, then lets get real about it.

Nobody is really offering change when they talk about ending the war and then turn around to enable the war by voting to fund it. This "change" meme is bullshit by all of them. It sounds nice, just like it did in 2006, but all it ended up being was just a bunch of words.

Real change is only offered by someone like Kucinich because he has the conviction to talk honestly about REAL change and the guts to enact it. Problem is, someone who's willing to lay down the specifics of what it REALLY takes to change things is someone who's considered too radical. That's why people like Kucinich are fucked, even though they're more realistic about what needs to be done than anyone. The rest of them would rather show off in some debate, bragging about how fast and hard they would counter attack a country who was a safe haven for someone who bombed us with a nuclear device. No wonder they didn't want Kucinich there last night. He would've made a mockery out of all the war talk, and he would've opted for real change through peace and diplomacy, not by flexing his military mite over a question designed to scare the hell out of all of us.

sure made plenty on his campaign trrail..."I'm the uniter not the divider" for example. Obama/Edwards are all talk. Neither has a track record of successful legislative accomplishments. Hillary has!

to tell us which is the flavor of the week. Last week it was Romney and Clinton. This week it is Obama and Huckabee. For a while there I thought the media would absolutely crown Huckabee and tell us don't bother backing someone else. After Tuesday we will have another pick of the litter. I like Obama, but I am afraid the media has not helped him by pushing him on the public. I know younger people like him, mostly because he is new and charismatic. They haven't delved into history enough to know experience is a big deal.