First: tomorrow we will have an open thread on BlogHer to talk about the Iowa Caucuses- so please check back on the homepage and weigh in with predictions, news, and, if you're an Iowan, real life tales! Now.... We hear a lot about 2008 being a “change” election. But what does change in politics really mean? I’ve put down some vignettes that have struck me in recent days- feel free to add more.
Change: Voters care about social good, and they're less Party-identified

. Sally Kohn wrote a wonderful piece at the Huffington Post:

The Des Moines Register poll indicated that Independents will decide the outcome of the Iowa caucuses. These are the voters who have rejected the divisive mud slinging by political parties bought and sold by the corporate elite. These are the voters who have resisted the myth that the only values are discriminatory, hateful values. These are the voters who have refused to believe that the private sector can solve all our problems and government has no role to play. What do they stand for?

Not change: Barack Obama has missed 80% of his votes in the Senate this fall to campaign, mostly in Iowa. I agree with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland

"Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, 'makes no sense,' says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton," the Columbus Dispatch writes. "'I'd like to see both parties say, "We're going to bring this to an end,"' he said.”

Change: Looking beyond blue states: from Laura Flanders at the Nation:

Howard Dean wanted a 50 State Strategy [to engage Democrats beyond the traditional blue states]; Obama appears to have one. His campaign has offices in Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota and three in Alabama. Salt Lake City had its grand opening Saturday.
Movement-building may not be as ooh and ahh worthy to the media as Oprah but it's what a whole lot of frustrated Dems are looking for. Like this Kossack "He is building a genuine grass-roots & net-roots infrastructure that will benefit progressives for years and decades to come."

Not Change: candidates' controlling the message, even if this tight control hurts them in the end (and to be fair, the media doesn't make it easier for the Clinton camp to loosen the iron grips)

: John Deeth at the Iowa Independent previews the fallout of Hillary Clinton’s “too careful” strategy:

The Clinton campaign may have been floating some trial balloons last night. The candidate commented late in the speech that caucus goers are "standing up for those who can't caucus" - citing troops in the Middle East and shift-working nurses and waitresses. The implication is that those folks would be with her, if only they could make it to the caucus, and it sets a stage for a sotto voce Beltway narrative of "well, you know, Iowa's got this screwy process and it was really stacked against her."

No Change: nebulous promises on health care, from Hedera’s Corner:

“I've been going through the Divided We Fail site's list of candidate statements on where they stand on the various issues of affordable health care. …I notice a certain lack of detail on the "how" in all these fine statements. Everybody says that health care will be "affordable", and no one will be able to refuse you for a pre-existing condition. (They're not dumb, they know what the issues are.) What I don't see is how the candidates expect to compel the existing health insurance industry to sell health care insurance policies if they don't think they can make a profit on them. You can make laws and rules that say, if you're going to sell health insurance policies, they have to meet these criteria; but what happens when all the major vendors say, we can't make any money at that, we withdraw from that market. They've done it before: there are areas in the hurricane belt where certain insurance companies won't sell homeowners' insurance any more. They're not really interested in "insurance" as it was originally developed; they only want to play the game if the dice are loaded so they can always win. The only way to do this is to take profit out of the medical game altogether and run it as a subsidized public service.”

Jury's out on change: "John Edwards at least admits that "the health system could evolve into a single-payer plan." For the latest on the candidates’ positions on health coverage, visit Health08, which reports that two-thirds of Americans support “health care system "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." In order to be viable enough, none of the major Democratic candidates promise a single payer system without involvement from insurance companies, but Edwards, Obama, and Clinton get close- I think.

The latest Des Moines Register poll has Obama and Huckabee winning. So, let's enjoy the excitement of Iowa, and hope for better in 2012: I hope to see you tomorrow when we will have an open thread on BlogHer to talk about the Iowa Caucuses- so please check back on the homepage and weigh in with predictions, news, and, if you're an Iowan, real life tales!