Frontrunnin'

Maybe it's just me, but my impression of the battle among Democratic presidential candidates over who best represents "change" is that it's a huge waste of time. I can't honestly imagine there is a single American voter even remotely inclined to vote for a Democrat in 2008 who wouldn't view any one of the contenders as a massive improvement from George Bush. Strictly speaking, defining "change" literally as simply a departure from what we've got now, I bet there aren't any voters predisposed toward Republicans who wouldn't view them all as agencies of change, either. So save your breath, Dems.

We know none of you would let New Orleans drown or let oilmen write our national energy policy or fire Arabic translators for being gay. We know that you care about the healthcare crisis and that you believe government can actually work. I think most of us know that even those of you who were dumb enough to vote for the war wouldn't have started it yourselves, and that any one of you probably would have captured, tried, and convicted bin Laden by now.

And, unfortunately, which one of you is the most innovative of your group has been rendered rather moot by the enormous clusterfuck Bush will leave behind that you'll have to clean up. Quite honestly, that's going to demand less visionary thinking than plain, old-fashioned elbow grease—knowing how to get shit done combined with a willingness to make some unpopular decisions. Classic leadership, friends.

I'm not saying there's no need for imagination, but your creative assets will only be as good as your work ethic come January 2009. You don't need to convince us you'll bring change; you need to convince us you're willing to trudge, because that's what'll save us.

[Damn, that sounds a lot like someone who should have been our president once upon a time…]