The polls say democratic voters want "change", so sure enough we're now hearing left and right from Hillary and her people that she is the "candidate for change".
This reminds me of our good friend GWB in the 2000 republican primary.
Remember those halcyon days? McCain was making some headway as a reformer with some proposals for legitimate reform like McCain-Feingold. GWB's people were reasonably concerned. But rather than actually adopting any real reform or even bothering to conceal his insider status, Bush just starts saying he's a "reformer with results" and standing in front of backdrops with that message. And of course it worked. Polls started showing people believed Bush was actually more of a reformer or outsider than McCain. The same thing is happening here with this ridiculousness about Hillary being the "change" candidate.
Look, of course any candidate running to replace a candidate of the other party will represent "change" to some degree. But for Hillary to somehow claim to be more of a change agent than Obama or Edwards when she unabashedly takes money from federal lobbiests and continues to be promulgated by slimy and obnoxious career Washington hacks like McAullife, Carville, Begala, Wolfson and Mark Penn, is the worst sort of cynicism and bad faith.
Can change from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton ever really be considered "change" or "reform". To switch from one group of Washington insiders to another? To suggest that it can is the nadir of cynicism and a rejection that real progressive change is even possible in America.
Dealing with that type of BS is precisely the sort of challenge suited to the Netroots. Let's show them that this isn't 2000 anymore. Politicians must no longer be permitted to get away with mindless sloganeering exploitation of voter ignorance. Hopefully, we can show Hillary that GWB / Rove campaign tactics are outmoded in 2008.