And How is this Change?

Don't vote Tuesday without reading this

Tomorrow, like many others across the country, Democrats in my state will vote in a primary. The media, bloggers, and others have been quite diligent in challenging most of the claims of Clinton and Obama. But one claim that has been accepted at face value is that Obama represents "change." That his presidency would be a radical change from the status quo. I'm still an undecided voter, so this post is not intended to oppose his selection. Instead it reflects the difficulty voters like myself are facing this year in finding that person who will best lead the country towards being the nation I hope we will become -- one that is true to our shared values, and where government is not an agent to advance the agenda of one group over another, but instead is the power that enforces the common good.

So, if the facts in this NYTimes article are accurate, how is the Senator from Illinois anymore an agent of change than any other self-proclaimed populist (i.e. Edwards, Huckabee, et al.) It appears that the influence of donors has trumped the intent of law in this case just as much as in the Bush administration. It's the Lincoln bedroom, it's Teddy and the education lobby, it's more of the same ... and people wonder why I look so closely and am so supportive of the so called minor party candidates.