Yes, Barack is top dog in the race to visibly and loudly lobby for change. But that is not to say that Hillary does not by her very essence represent a very fierce agent of change. The simple truth is that both candidates are serious agents of change. I would argue that Hillary is more likely to be successful at achieving a significant measure of change, although that is obviously a matter of great debate. I would also suggest that while Barack and his supporters, The Cult of Obama, really do want a lot more change than even Hillary wants or can deliver, it is likely that their ravenous appetite for change far exceeds the ability of the American people to stomach and tolerate such excessive change. The phrase "throwing out the baby with the bath water" comes to mind. Sure, there is plenty of pork and fat and grissle in Washington and Barack et al, and Hillary, are right to want to rock the boat and change the system, a complete, total, and 100% revolution in the form of government in Washington is unlikely to be palatable to more than a very small niche of hard-core activists. Even if people want certain forms of change, they may not be prepared to accept the consequences of those changes. The key is that it is all a balancing act, which Hillary deeply understands while Barack, et al are either unable or unwilling to comprehend, accept, or acknowledge.
The decision facing primary voters is whether Hillary does in fact represent enough change and more credible and palatable change or whether Barack is at serious risk of rushing headlong into too much change which may risk unpalatable consequences.
It is simply impractical to change everything in Washington overnight (or in four or eight years), but Barack foolishly and misguidedly insists that... "Yes we can!" How credible is that?
On Tuesday the primary voters (not all of whom will be true Democrats) in Indiana and North Carolina will have their opportunity to pass judgment on whether Hillary represents enough change and whether Barack may be seeking too much or too unrealistic change.
In truth, voters are torn, not having great confidence as to what minimum degree of change is needed and how much change and consequences they can actually chew and swallow and stomach. In some states it is almost an even 50/50 split, but at worst at least 35% to 45% of voters seriously disagree with the majority view on how much change is wise.
Of course, that is why we will have another election in four years, to give voters the opportunity to change their minds if they feel that they have made a big mistake.
One final caution to partisan Democrats: What appeals most to hard-core Democrats will not necessarily be what appeals to a majority of Aeericans. The election in November is for a president for all of the people, not just for Democrats or a niche of activists within the Democratic party. Think for one moment what degree of change willl be acceptable to the vast majority of American voters. Not just 50.001% or 52%, but at least 75% of Americans. Let us indeed have change, but change that most people can willingly accept and be proud of.
-- Jack Krupansky