Obama and Clinton: What Kind of Change?

The question asked by a quite a few in one form or another.

The Toronto Star asks: Is Obama or Clinton really for 'change'?. Here is how our leading Democratic candidates look like from Toronto:

There has been no evidence in his short time in the U.S. Senate, however, that Obama is an agent of change and there is scant evidence in his platform or history of votes to suggest he can effect change faster or further than Hillary Clinton.

The Senate voting records of the two Democratic presidential hopefuls are almost identical. Clinton's health-care proposals are more far-reaching.

There is no daylight between their plans to combat global warming.

Obama might move troops out of Iraq more quickly. Clinton would be more measured in her approach.

David Ignatius takes up the issue under the headline Riding the Change Horse in today's Washington Post:

Obama's change message is appealing in part because it's so unspecific. Rather than calling for programs that might prove divisive, he summons the country to gather in a new bipartisan consensus. It's a somewhat vapid version of change, but it appeals to the country precisely because most Americans don't see themselves in ideological terms. They want to be in the new center Obama describes, which transcends racial and ideological lines.

***

The 2008 campaign, in addition to being great spectator sport, should help the candidates and the country rise to this challenge. Everyone wants "change" -- but we need a good political brawl to help us all figure out what that means.

Some interesting ideas getting kicked around in both articles. My only thought about change was the the return of intelligence to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.