Change?

They say that the only person who likes change is a wet baby.  The older I get, the more I realize how true that statement is.  It has been shown in research studies and in real life that many people choose to die rather than change their lifestyles or habits.

Except, it seems, in politics.

The two current Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination are running on a platform of "change."  You see it on big signs in front of their podiums.  They say the word a number of times in their speeches.  Is there a required quota  that the term must be used?  You hear them talk about it in debates and forums.

I have a two questions.  First, what do they mean by "change?"  That term is ill defined in their speeches and conversations.  They talk about "change" and never really say what they mean by it.  I believe this is a carefully crafted strategy.

By leaving the term "change" nebulous, the potential voter is left to define what "change" means to him or her.  By being able to define one's own definition of change, then the voter mentally connects the dots and votes for the candidate of "change" because he or she represents EXACTLY what the voter wants it to mean.  Hence, the voter thinks he gets what she wants because she is voting for something that only exists in her mind.

Clever tactic.  Don't clearly define "change" so that the voter defines it and votes for his definition of it.

That's my first question.  Now for my second question.

Is it just me, or is it not obvious that the very fact that we will most definitely have a new president in the White House in 2009 quite a change enough?  George Bush's leaving office will be a big change all by itself.  So, whether anyone gets elected president, the very fact that President Bush has to leave office due to constitutional mandates is change enough.

In effect, no one need vote at all, if one follows this thought.  Change will come voluntarily or involuntarily- with or without me.

Say, isn't that the most insidious aspect of change, anyway?