Vote for change!

I’d like to elaborate a on a great point brought up by The Professor. In an Iowa campaign speech Obama said “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.” Obama’s “change we need” campaign slogan was as inescapable as it was vague. In a brilliant Wall Street Journal article Fouad Ajami discussed how Obama’s personality and promises were ambiguous enough as to allow any member of his adoring crowd to project their own individual needs and expectations upon him, knowing their own personal version of him would fulfill their every heart’s desire. Comparing Obama’s crowds to the ones Ajami has spent much of his career documenting in the Middle East, he says “A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination.”

Obama’s promise of “change” is vague in the same way. Can anyone identify exactly what it means? It obviously means many different things to many different people. To Obama, (at least for the past year), the primary definition of change is “Not Bush.” By that same token, anyone elected would represent change, so Obama spent the campaign comparing McCain to Bush, and it worked. McCain seemed to have not even noticed the comparison until midway into the third debate.

But for the voter, it meant something on an emotional level. Things are not “going well” now, so change is needed. War is universally bad and we only do it to kill innocent people, but Obama will change that. Bush gets some of his words mixed up on TV and therefore is a complete idiot, but Obama will change that. The environment is being destroyed and bunnies are being driven from their homes on a daily basis, but Obama will change that. Evil greedy Wall Street people are stealing money from my paycheck daily to provide padding for the seats of their golden sofas, and Obama will change that. Only rich, old, white men are involved in our government, so Obama will definitely change that. Washington DC has probably never even seen a black guy before he came into town. Above all, Obama understands me where Bush never could, so that’ll be a change too. All of this gives me hope. Hyperbole? I wish.

Now the happy feelings are starting to fade, the tears of joy have dried up, and we are looking face to face with reality. Change has come, and so far, Obama has evidently completely forgotten his own talking points. I have heard pundits and lay-people on both sides say “it’s not fair to criticize him yet, he’s not even into office!” To which I say: excuse me, I was under the impression that change is coming. That gave me hope. I was led to believe that change and hope radiated from every pore of Obama’s being. The words “change and hope” accounted for 87% of his speeches for the past year. So I expect change from minute one. Aren’t I entitled to it? I don’t believe change comes a week, a month, a year, or even a 2nd term after he is elected, I think it began on Nov. 4th.

So where’s America’s change so far? He’s well into his most important pre-inauguration step, setting up his teams. Unfortunately for the “change and hope” crowd, nearly every member of his cabinet shows that despite a year’s worth of saying the contrary, he is indeed planning on “playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and [will be] expecting a different result.” Let’s step back a few months, to his first pick, VP. Who does he pick? Joe Biden, the most insider of insiders, a guy who has never held a single non-government job in his life. Biden has been in the Senate for 30+ years, since Nixon was in office. Nice one there. Rahm Emanuel? Greg Craig? Clinton hacks. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Are you kidding me? Every single one, a complete and total government/Washington insider, through and through. None of them have brought any kind of noteworthy (read: beneficial) change to our country so far, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get there this time, right? Perhaps my favorite appointment was that he has decided to keep Robert Gates on as Sec. of Defense. The only issue I heard mentioned about it on the news today was how incredible is it that Obama’s keeping a Republican on staff. Which is completely missing the point- why is the agent of change, who has been talking about Bush’s “failed war strategies” and “failed foreign policy” choosing to keep Bush’s Sec. of Defense? Wouldn’t that imply that Obama thinks Gates is doing a good job? But I thought the definition of “change” was “not Bush?”

If I were an Obama fan I’d be pretty confused right now. You know that cliché, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results? Apparently Obama thought it was a prescription for how to pick his cabinet members. Now that’s change I can believe in! Or not.