Read 'em and weep, change partners and dance

Two fairly brief comments on today's, post-New Hampshire political scene:

1) If the New Hampshire Democratic primary was actually turned around because of Hillary's near-breakdown Monday, then there are too many people with the right to vote. If you want to vote for Hillary because of her experience (overstated, in my opinion), or her health care plan, or because you think the country will prosper having a woman in charge, then that's fine. You have an opinion, no matter how misguided I may believe it is, and you are acting on that opinion.

But if you're undecided, looking for some magical occurrence to make up your mind for you, and a brief moment of passion from a candidate sways your vote, maybe you should just stay home. I'm not saying every voter needs to pore over position papers, or read dense political science tracts. I'm just saying that a three-second welling of near-tears shouldn't be enough to turn you from one candidate to another.

2) Change, change, change. George W. Bush gave us change - we now have a Bush doctrine that allows for preemptive war, we now have the belief that tax cuts are always good, and we believe that science is optional in formulating policy on science and technology.

So do we really want to give our vote to the person who evokes change the most number of times? Of course not. We want constrained change, change that takes us farther up the hill. But what does that mean? If GDP is increasing, but already-wealthy people are grabbing all of the benefits from it, is that the change we want? I could find any number of other examples, but the point is, we need to identify the changes that will fulfill the goals of this nation, and work toward them and elect the people who are most likely to effect them.

But that's not really any different from what we do now, is it?