Collegiate Times

Correction the poem is not featured in the publication "Above the Waves" being that it was written after the book went into publication.

I'm curious - what would your assessment have been had McCain won the election? You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but it's a bit condescending to infer that all Americans feel similarly to yourself. Personally, I didn't feel slighted by the Bush administration. I feel that he acted in a manner which, in hindsight, might not have been the most beneficial - but which no amount of foresight could have perceived. The whole 'no blood for oil' line is a bit tired by now anyway - especially given that Bush utilized the same intelligence (notably flawed) as Clinton. The only real difference is that Bush didn't have an unsuccessful military escapade to weigh him down, as Clinton did with Somalia and then Kosovo. . . ultimately, change still remains a campaign slogan. It's a bit early to credit Obama with much of anything other than being elected.

Change and Hope are not policies. Obama was elected by people that don't understand politics, and soon they will realize that. His socialist views are not what our country was founded on. It is not the governments responsibility to make sure you have a job and health care. The job is to make sure you have a capable Military and I would say you have one. I have decided to treat Obama the same that Bush was treated over the last four years so basically nothing is off limits.

Change and hope are not policies, but they are a tone, much like other politicians have employed the tone of fear to keep people in line rather than inspire them. The "socialism" claim is tired and baseless. Obama is no more socialist than Bush, Clinton, or Regan. He cannot and will not guarantee a job or healthcare to every American -- but those that voted for him expect him to create an economic environment in which that is possible. The American government's role has never been to solely provide a military and, with changing times, the relevance of the military-as-only-line-defense mentality is plummeting. Finally, to merely be close-minded to a president of opposite political ideology out of spite or revenge is ignorant, irresponsible and harmful to the political climate of this country.

Actually, the Federal government was created to accomplish a small set of VERY specific ends, the primary three of which were 1) coining currency, 2) conduct wars, 3) conduct diplomacy. Up there also was maintaining free trade between the several states. I'd charge that the claim of socialism is not as tired as you might think - especially given that the US Government now owns preferred stock (as a majority stockholder, I believe) in two major banks. Fundamentally, that means that the Federal Government gets to make decisions about the operation of the bank; consequently, the banks are considered to be de facto nationalized which is a principle underpinning of a socialist movement. I don't believe that Mr. Obama is a socialist per se, but I worry for the future of the nation if we continue to allow the Government to swoop in and 'save the day' when the day doesn't actually need to be saved. The principal concern that I have is that we will increase public dependence on Federal programs, which nearly always corresponds to a sharp decrease in personal responsibility. Not everyone tries to game the system, of course - but enough do that the programs we enact now will likely never be overturned (check out Social Security, for instance).

Actually, the line "We looked at tradition, and most stood for change" only reflects the outcome of the election, not how every individual feels (keyword, most). Regardless of what the Fed'l Gov't was initially created for (a Constitution which included slavery and has been amended 27 times), it has evolved into a less...primordial... and all-inclusive type doctrine. For many underrepresented Americans conditioned to believe the Constitution and Federal Gov't only worked to increase the prosperity of one national majority (those of European decent), the "slogans" hope and change, combined with the ascension of one from that "minority" to the highest office, does hold some weight in the political arena. It creates opportunity where before there was none. It inspires a return to education on a level you probably have never even read about. What this "War on Tradition" represents is the credit Obama gave to the people, where others, like Mr./Mrs. "Republican" below, failed. If anything on this page is condescending, it's stating that Obama was elected by people who don't understand politics [as usual]. The political arena has shifted, and now the voice of the people, the democratic republic, will have an influence on policy. So in essence, hope and change ARE policies, when in the right hands of course.