I have finally realized what "change and hope" means?

Change - The change that Obama is looking more like a republican on the issues


Hope - The hope that his supporters have that he is not serious|||And that of course leads to %26quot;shock and awe%26quot;.


Shock-That Obama isn%26#039;t sincere.


Awe-Awed that there isn%26#039;t any real choice between Obama and McCain.|||Yep, he%26#039;s a typical politician. He%26#039;s selling business as usual as change and hope.





Still, he%26#039;s a lot better than McCain.|||This is typical politics in campaign season. The candidates attempt to move toward the center to appeal to more people. Don%26#039;t be fooled by Barack Hussein Emptysuit. He was, is and always will be a radical left wing socialist.|||Obama is merely pandering....hes still a marxist. Lol I bet hes gonna say he shot a duck once so hes all for gun rights too.|||Yes, I agree.





%26quot;The positions being taken by Obama are not some clever vote-winning ploy. What you see is what you get. He is a thoroughly corrupt and reactionary politician, who has clawed his way up through the political cesspool known as the Chicago Democratic Party machine. He is prepared to do anything to succeed and whatever is required to uphold the interests of the ruling elite that both political parties serve.





For a layer of so-called lefts oriented to the Democratic Party, none of this will make a difference. They will only work harder at trying to convince people that Obama is merely being pressured from the right and can be pushed back by pressure from the left.





This standpoint is most clearly expressed by the Nation magazine, which recently commented on the controversy provoked by Obama’s selection of a right-wing economic advisor.





“Now Obama has stumbled into embarrassing questions about his commitment to that message of change,” it said in a June 19 editorial. “It wouldn’t be the first time a Democratic presidential candidate talked about sweeping change, won over the party faithful and ordinary voters, and then abandoned them to powerful interests. But we believe Obama is better than that...”





The Nation peddles the crassest illusions in Obama and through him, in the Democratic Party and the profit system it defends. But this task becomes more and more difficult as Obama moves sharply to the right, even while the deepening economic and social crisis are creating the conditions for a broad shift to the left among American youth, students and working people.%26quot;


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul200…





%26quot;Obama’s rapid evolution in the wake of the primaries demonstrates the politics of deception and manipulation of public opinion that his campaign has embodied from the outset. It has never represented an insurgency from below, but rather a bid by elements of the ruling elite to effect certain definite but limited changes in policy, while using Obama to supply a fresh face for American imperialism under conditions in which it is discredited at home and abroad.





The attempt to use the Obama campaign to delude broad layers of the population seeking change enjoys the active and crucial support of most of what passes for the American “left.” They seek to cover up or apologize for the right-wing trajectory of the Democrats. Some put forward the cynical argument that Obama is merely doing what it takes to get elected—the American people, they would argue, are backward and right-wing. Others maintain that he is reacting to pressure from the establishment and must be pushed back on course through pressure from the left.





Typical of this second school is the left liberal journalist Arianna Huffington, who posted on her web site advice to Obama, warning him that “tacking to the center is a losing strategy.”





Instead, she called upon him to “appeal to the 82 million people who did not vote in 2004.” She continued, “Isn’t galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d’être of the Obama campaign in the first place?”





In reality, Obama is now running on his real program, that of a corrupt and reactionary big business politician. He will leave it to figures like Huffington, the Nation, and others on the so-called left to continue promoting illusions in his candidacy, while he makes his pitch to his key constituencies, the financial aristocracy and the forces of the state.





The Democrats have no interest in coming into office with a mandate for “fundamental change,” because they have no desire or intention of carrying out such transformations. In fact, Obama’s latest campaign swing is aimed in no small part at creating a new and decidedly conservative base for politics that will in key respects represent continuity with those of the Bush administration.%26quot;


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul200…|||Change= taxes through the roof Hope= You have some money left out of your paycheck|||People like to complain about Obama%26#039;s plans for change. But no one can tell me what is working now and what has worked for the past 8 years.


It%26#039;s time to get over it.|||Change = changing his mind more often than his socks.


Hope = hoping nobody notices he baddly needs to change his socks.