This reads like one of those "we've got to be even to both sides" posts so we'll say "everyone does this" to me. Seriously, while Obama is not immune to buzzwords, clearly he frequently lays out the A, B, C of a plan that Ms. Dickinson asks for.

Take for example last week's debate. Other than the infamous earmarks and temporary budgetary freeze "across the board," I'm not sure I heard McCain articulate one single detail about how he'd do any of the things he was proposing. On the other hand, Obama on several occasions stated "first i'll do x, then I'll do y, which will be followed by z," making not only a case for CHANGE that he will bring but stating clearly how he intends to bring it.

Perhaps Ms. Dickinson would have been better to give a little more details about these buzz terms, where they started, and how some of them got hijacked and devalued (on purpose no doubt) by the McCain campaign. They've effectively sullied the notion of change by using it repeatedly in an utterly unfathomable manner (Rovian politics = change?), but, to me, this time last year when I first began really tuning in to Barack Obama, the notion of a change from the dark cloud of post-9/11 politics was beautiful and uplifting.

To me a year later, when I think of Obama and just the change that he would instantly bring--his mere presence IS change, he can speak English like a man that has actually read a book, he values discourse, he sees shades of grey, not black and white, even in the face of the nastiest attacks he remains dignified--the word is still meaningful.

If Ms. Dickinson is right then the Republican tactic has worked. A word/idea that actually was meaningful has been sunk into the stew of BS TV politics. However, I disagree. Barack Obama has the right to say "CHANGE" as many times as he desires because, for him, it's the truth.

I'd personally like to see "Arab" be removed as a buzzword for "anything bad/negative/un-American". Just thinking in typeface.

On November 2nd, I have decided that I will not vote for Obama or McCain. Furthermore, in national and state-wide elections, I am voting anti-incumbent, regardless of the challenger's party affilition.

Congress needs to be shaken and stirred, as neither party seems capable of even discussing looming issues: aging population, need for increased immigration, China and India and global resource competition, US energy shortages and requirements, unsustainable entitlement spending, ancient, decayed infrastructure, corrupt and over-complex tax code, ...

I am so darned frustrated that Congress cannot even pass a simple budget. The entire US government is funded through continuing resolutions (temporary extensions), rather than competent long term planning.

End of opinion; Analysis:

I think it is likely the country will the Democrats a shot at running the country again, both White House and Congress, in 2008. The Republicans had it in 2000-2006 (albeit with razor thin margins), and blew it, accomplishing nothing but more spending on useless pork bills.

Will the Democrats screw up their opportunity? It depends on their margin of victory. I remain skeptical they can address the Big Problems(tm) with any more skill than the Republicans.

Jeff @ Armchair FP

i don't think we should of bailed out the big companies of wall street.The big companies had a few million dollar party, after we bailed them out. Now, hows that for the tax payers money and they big companies gave them advances. the people with 410ks are the only ones that needed a bail out, why did we have to watch out for them. after all this we've had put are country more in deep shet than ever because now this and the next generations have to pay for are governments mestakes.Thats not right in my books, i belive in this country their will be revoloution to come about.There has already been protest about it.