I watched the New Hampshire debates, both Republican and Democratic, which is what I consider the beginning of the actual 2008 election season, mostly because it is. Everything that has happened up until now has been dress rehearsal. Voters across the nation pay attention to what happens in New Hampshire and beyond.

The central issue has come out. Do we want change, as the Democratic candidates say, or do we want the status quo, in which the Republican candidates cast their version of change. For examples, keep health care private and win in Iraq. Plus don't forget 9/11. And Ronald Reagan. Tax cuts! Free markets, free enterprise and so on.

The debate questions for the 2008 election season are

Does the majority of the voting American public in 2008 want change ala the Democrats or the status quo ala the Republicans?

What effects will a Democratic POTUS have on the country and foreign affairs?

What effects will a Republican POTUS have on the country and foreign affairs?

I think using the old idea of Democrat versus Republican would mean the same status quo of shuffling the players. However, when you look at the majority of the voters it is probable that they do not want change. If voters want change they will be voting for candidates such as Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul. All the other candidates represent the status quo whether they are Democrat or Republican.

There is a sense amongst the public on how there is something terribly wrong with Washington, D. C. . The conventional candidates recognize this so they proclaim themselves to be agents of change. If you are not it, it works to say you are. They are depending on the old way of voters have made decisions. It looks like with media control they will be successful.

Not all Democrats and not all Republicans are the same so I am unable to make any blanket statements as to how the country will be affected or the affect on foreign affairs.

First, don't kid yourself about lack of impact of the Iowa caucus. Iowa has nearly twice as many delegates as New Hampshire, so Iowa does hold weight, no matter how uneducated people are about the state or what your opinion is. Secondly, it appears to be very important to the candidates given the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions spent just on ads, not to mention the millions of man hours crisscrossing the state. Third, if no one was paying attention, why were there media from dozens of foriegn countries camped here from the day after Christmas until January 4?

Next, I don't see any real change that will take place from either party. Do you honestly think that after a democrat gets elected that all the nations ills will suddently be reversed? Do you view these candidates as candidates for POTUS, or as candidates for royalty. With the narrow lead in congress, it will take a lot more than a democratic president to change everything in this country that they claim to want to change.

I will go on record to predict that a democrat gets elected. But that doesn't mean that it will be a good thing for the country. Hang on to your wallets folks!

Finally, is there anything that a democratic candidate can say or do that you honestly wouldn't support? Just curious.

I don't know scuba, I agree with the premise of this post. Saturday's debates were definitely the start of the "real" campaign... most Americans weren't paying attention to the race before or during Iowa. They starting paying attention the moment the results rolled in. That's why Iowa was so important. It was crucial for these campaigns that, as soon as people start paying attention, their candidate be the front-runner. Only Iowans, Journalists and well-informed citizens paid attention to the race for Iowa -- which excludes millions of voters.

I don't say this to diminish Iowa's importance -- I think one of the great things about having Iowa first is that it allows lesser-known candidates (like Huckabee) to compete under the radar for months or years, then finally pop up a front-runner one glorious morning. But the fact is, the vast majority of Americans were only dimly aware that Iowa was even having a caucus until now.



I hate this kind of thinking. You know how many times I hear someone say something to the effect of, what difference does it make, or our problems will still be here, or it's not going to make a difference in the 'hood, or something like that... ugh.

No, "all of the nation's ills" will not be "suddenly reversed." Even if everyone you liked, scuba, got elected and did exactly what you wanted them to do, there would still be a wide gap between the world as it is, and the world as it ought to be.

But that's hardly a reason to opt out of the process. Frankly, if 536 Floridians hadn't thought like you do, 3,900 Americans wouldn't have died in Iraq. If a few thousand voters in Illinois hadn't thought like that, there might never have been a John F. Kennedy, or a been a Bay of Pigs, a March on Washington or a Vietnam War. The 1960s would have been a different place. There would be no movie called "Forrest Gump."

That last hypothetical alone is worth my vote.

Presidents change things despite themselves -- even the pragmatic, reflexive and conservative ones. How many of you in 2000 thought that Bush, a seemingly mild-mannered "compassionate conservative" would preside over 8 years of bold and uninterrupted, cataclysmic global religious terror conflict with detainees wired and strapped to car batteries, living off a diet of mulched constitution?

Of course, no candidate will be able to "change everything in this country that they claim to want to change." No president, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt has been so monumental. But *even* assuming a bitterly divided congress enact zero legislation, events will rattle America over the next four years, and the president who presides over those events will sway the outcome.

Does the majority of the voting American public in 2008 want change ala the Democrats or the status quo ala the Republicans?

Of course they want change and it should be obvious by now that it will not happen. The Dems swept in with “change” and since that day we have seen the same ol same ol. Pork and more pork – and little else. It took 2 years to get a better energy policy. now it will take decades to actually get something done to free us of foreign oil and that is IF it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle of the PORK.

I my be cynical but imo anyone who expects significant change – esp. from a Democrat, is dreaming.