The YouTube/CNN Democratic debates weren't totally horrible.

The gimmicky YouTube/CNN Democratic debate last night could've been the S.O.S. (same ole' s**t) but with some Web 2.0 wrapping paper. Surprisingly, only about 50% of it was the S.O.S. The one thing I picked up on is that almost every question said something to the effect of "we need a change". To me, "change" means a new direction, not just veering a few degrees off the present course. And on that stage, only two people were representing true and honest change... and they were relegated to the far corners, and given very little screen time.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are crazy if they think they actually have a chance of winning the nomination. They both offer NEW ideas and a brand new direction... but while the YouTubers may posture about wanting "real" change, they'll never vote for it. What almost all Americans really want is a slight modification to the current policies, but not so much that it becomes scary. The fact is, we're frightened of change. Clinton is ahead in the Democratic polls, and she's a typical obfuscating politician, just like all the other politicians... how is that change? Just because she has boobs? Maybe she won't suck as a much as President Bush, but has that become our standard for electing the next President?

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I may talk and act just like every other politician in the world, but at least I'm not as bad as Bush."

Don't get me wrong, though. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich or Gravel if they were the only two candidates and a man-eating lion would eat me unless I chose. If they did half the s**t they proposed, it would ruin the country. The same thing goes for the Republican side with Ron Paul. Though, if the choice were voting for Paul or getting eaten by a lion, I'd vote for Paul. How's that for a ringing endorsement?

I really wish people could just be honest. No one want "change", we want "tweaks". And there's nothing wrong with that.