On the first type of change- the policy part, I don't think Obama will invade any oil-rich middle-eastern (or otherwise) countries and award no-bid contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars solely to his political supporters. That's just one example. Hillary, when she talks about change, only has this type of change in mind.

On the second point- change in tone- I don't think think Obama will inject religion into the race, turning neighbors against neighbors, to try to win an election (as Bush did in 2004 and as Billary is doing now, though not as blatantly, with race). I use religion as just one example. But the whole Bush presidency has been about “us versus them”. Hillary is clueless about this second type of change. When the country talks about change, this is what most people refer to. The Dem candidates positions may be the same or very similar, but it is the change of tone- which Hillary can't deliver in a million years- that most matters. I think both Hillary and Bush are very polarizing figures. I also feel that Obama has worked towards consensus. I have not seen one shred of evidence in Obama that is, “my way or the highway”. He started as a community organizer, without the benefit of family (or any other) connections in Chicago. In order for him to get anything done in that position would have required intelligence, flexibility and negotiations. The only people who are in a “my way or the highway” position are those who have tons of money (enough that they don't have to work) and tons of connections. Obama doesn't have those things. Both Bush and Clinton do.

Polimom and cosmoetica- right on!

A black pol as part of the Chicago machine. Yes, I'm sure he's a Daley boy. SD, take that inhaler again.

Instead of trying to demonstrate that open borders and amnesty is good for the country, that is will not adversely impact cities, neighborhoods, or schools, that immigration will not destroy business, alter the make up of cities, or lower wages.

Of course, a really change in politics would discuss the facts of policy changes. Yet, Senator Obama is definitely not doing that. He talks about himself and change and consensus. Yet, I see no real change and no real consensus. Consensus in Chicago politics is agreement with me or else. Senator Obama is definitely in that mode.

Of course, the real change in politics is the collapse of the Republican Party and the coming of the one party state. That is something that Senator Obama will feel at home with considering his political experience in Chicago.

But sd, when you say,

My guess is that Senator Obama will propose a defacto open borders program can call anyone who opposes it a racist and a bigot. Not exactly a real change in politics.

…I hear “I don't care what he says. He's lying”. My guess (and you may have expressed this unequivocally elsewhere) is that short of a massive wall and many hundreds of thousands of buses loaded and headed south, there really isn't a plan — and very few presidential candidates — that would suit you.

That makes his position almost identifcal to President Bush's proposal. so, where is the change.

? Where is the change? I think you've missed the point of Obama's message, sd. It's summed up, though, in the title of this blog post.

Once again, Senator is the same politics and the same positions dressed up in a new package so that elite whites can feel good about themselves.

If you look at how black activist have functioned in Chicago, consensus would not be a description. My guess is that Senator Obama will propose a defacto open borders program can call anyone who opposes it a racist and a bigot. Not exactly a real change in politics.

Seriously though — superdestroyer, have you read Obama's immigration position? Where are you getting the “no fines” from?

And it's all because of identity politics!!

Since the MSM has placed him beyond criticism!!!

Before anyone gets to excited about Senator Obama, please explain how someone whose immigration policy proposals are almost identical to President Bush's proposal except for less border security and no fine can be seen as either developing consensus or creating change?

What the South Carolina primary has demonstrate is that the identify politics that has define campaigns between Democrats and Republicans has now spilled over into the Democratic Primary. America has seen the future of politics as the Republican Party collapses. The Democratic Primary will become the only relevant election and it will be defined by identity and special interest groups.