The only thing on the planet ye commi’s are optimistic about is the *next election*.

Jeff, you clueless statist. We don’t need an “energy policy” or an “education policy”. We need far less policies altogether. That would be a real “change”, would it not?

EDWARDS: Good idea.

OBAMA: … because — and some of them complained. They said…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: They said, “Where am I going to eat?”

GIBSON: They can now buy food for members of Congress if the members of Congress are standing up. That’s my understanding of what the rules have changed. You can’t sit down and eat, but you can stand up and eat. Tell me why that’s change.

OBAMA: Here’s what we did. They can’t buy meals. They can’t provide gifts. They can no longer lend corporate…

GIBSON: They can have huge parties for you as long as you’re standing up.

EDWARDS: They can’t eat as much if they’re standing up, Charlie.

OBAMA: That’s true.
=================================

I don’t think Charlie Gibson’s remarks brought clarity to the issue.

Under the “S1 Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007” “Gifts from lobbyists can only total $100 per year.”

I’m not sure how that fits in with lobbyists throwing a politician a big party or eating while standing vs. eating while sitting.

Didn’t want to wait for the 3G model?

- social media
- diversity
- gay marriage

Change is absolutely happening in corporations, universities, governments… I don’t think we point to it enough; the “writers strike” is a perfect example. New media affects everyone: (again) corporations, universities, governments… but somehow Hollywood has laid claim to taking the brunt of it. Why shouldn’t I be paid more too?

Of all places, I heard this on a “Best of” episode of Nancy Grace last night, and somehow I think it fits: When a would-be murderer’s father was debating his son’s reason for taking his child out of daycare, he said, “There is a difference between a degree of fever and being sick.” And you know, he’s right. While either constitutes a change in the body, one “fires it up” and the other breaks it down. And it’s the doctor’s job to figure out how to treat it, either as a bacterial or viral infection, and in some cases, not at all. Either option is delicate and deliberate. Either constitutes change.

Bottom line: Yes, we’ve heard a lot of talk; but you know we’re not going to get into the nitty-gritty until the fall. Yes, as a people, we don’t like change; but the rhetoric, the spin, the marketing, the bullshit surrounding the word–we need it. Without it, we wouldn’t know how we’re feeling, and we wouldn’t get new episodes of “Lost.” And that’s really what we care about.

The important questions are: what issues will the next president throw his or her weight behind; what is their ability to come up with big ideas that can get done; and has the candidate proven they can actually do what it takes to make big things happen.

I am actually intrigued by the types of leadership style that each candidate brings. Hillary and McCain clearly have the ability and willingness to wade in the mud, to work the system, Obama would have to use his bridge-building ability…his popular support and his intellect to push his agenda through.

Who has the big ideas and the ability to get them done?

I wouldn’t change negative advertising, though. It’s one of the main ways that actual policy info reaches voters, even if it means the attacked candidate has to “correct” some spurious charge.

Also, while the Facebbok data is interesting, I don’t think a debate agenda need be driven entirely by any poll — scientific or otherwise. There are important issues people need to hear debated, even if a particular group doesn’t want to hear more about it.

In this example, the Dems generally want to hear more about domestic policy, and not much about foreign policy or the war. But it’s not like whichever Dem gets the nomination won’t have to have good answers on those topics in the general election. (And the reverse is true for the GOP.)

Edwards is angry and annoying. Richardson is irrelevant.

I had hoped for more from this field.

As for “change” itself, I don’t know but I’ll bet “change” is always a big theme for the out-of-office party whenever a two term President is on the way out. Particularly this year. Surely it’s a barometer for how frustrated many people are with their leadership.