Clinton or McCain, for positive change
If you're new here at 2thinknow, and you're interested in the latest ideas on trends, companies and innovation, subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for your visit!
2THINKNOW COMMENT, USA — It’s easy to talk about change.
Obama chants change like a mantra. But what change?
Not all change is clearly good, some is clearly bad.
The current White House changed things in USA, the broader Americas and the world. But it could not be argued to be positive change on any level.
I want change. But positive change.
And I am not convinced Obama knows how to do positive change. It’s difficult.
We need proof of his ideas and policies. Specifics. Like Australia’s Left leader Kevin Rudd gave before the election.
My gut feel is Obama is not the one. Obama, would be an excess of the Left mistake, as we now have an excess of the Right.
We need instead a steady hand. Hillary. McCain.
A steady hand is the agent of implementing positive change this time around….
Bad Changes since Clinton Left.
No one can seriously argue that America and the world is better off now.
Roll back mentally to 1990s, when Bill Clinton was in office.
Financially? Better under Clinton.
Security? Better under Clinton.
Governance? Better under Clinton.
Globally? Better international relationships and less enemies under Clinton.
Safer, wealthier, less debt, greater security. All under Clinton.
The Good News of Today
The main good news today I see is stronger states. Stronger Governors. As the Federals stepped away.
Now that people like Governor Schwarzenegger in California were able to lead by example. Could be President Schwarzenegger one day, perhaps?
And Now to 2008-9?
There are many good candidates in the elections. Hillary. McCain. Edwards. Probably all have a good chance.
Hillary & McCain are well known to be capable.
Agents of revolutionary change - probably not.
But change of the revolution is not what we need. The USA does not need extreme ideology.
Why? Well it was the ideology that got USA and the world into its current mess. More opposing ideology will somehow dig it out?
Do we need more ideology, or just someone to administer the White House? Full time.
Innovation in the White House
Where’s the innovation in 2008? Not in more radical change.
What we really need is someone to spend 4 years administering and managing. Undoing all the excesses and restoring order. A steady hand.
Someone to mend America.
Positive change, or innovation, is not always radical change.
Hillary or McCain is a steady hand.
It’s not about how ‘likeable’ the candidate is in some sophomoric popularity contest which Pamela Anderson would win!
Both McCain and Hillary are intelligent, experienced and steady hands. I respect both of them. Hillary for her political experience, McCain for his military and record.
And the positive change, the innovation, is in the steady hand. Edwards may be good, but I don’t know enough to say whether he is right for the role.
But if you want positive change, that consists of a steadying hand.
So Obama, is not the right choice, on that assessment.
In 4 years there may be chance for more radical change and reform. What we need now is steadying.
So whether you are Left or Right, Hillary & McCain are the best choices for innovation.
It’s natural to want to change everything.
But in the implementing of change, those who wish to change everything, often achieve very little.
The time has come for a steady hand.
Christopher
Speaker. Author. Editor-In-Chief. Executive Director of Innovation, 2thinknow.
What's your View?
Or Follow us on Twitter or StumbleUpon