Change is the mantra of the presidential candidates in this election year, but the question is, change from what to what? Winston Churchill is credited with saying, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction,” which suggests that the problem facing the American electorate is not whether there will be change, but just what is the “right direction.”

Buddha said, “Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” Another famous saying about change is: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” (Author unknown)

So, what are we to take from all this?

Life is about change. Nothing ever stays the same. The elderly, which certainly includes me, generally want things to stay the same, as they remember them or think they remember them, while the young are all about change. That’s what they do, as they grow and mature. They easily initiate and/or adapt to the things that are new in their lives, from technology to the latest in fashion and style, music, art, etc.

Barack Obama’s campaign slogan is, “Change we can believe in.” An example of the Senator’s policy position about health care, taken from his campaign website reads:

I…believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can’t take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right…We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday’s health care debates. It’s time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair. - Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, 5/27/07

Sounds good, doesn’t it? But, looking at it from Winston Churchill’s perspective, to what end? “A comprehensive solution” implies more government intrusion into the marketplace at great cost and/or less freedom of choice than we currently have, whichever candidate becomes President.

Most people recognize that the government doesn’t run much of anything very well, notwithstanding the fact that they often elect candidates who try to do just that. A good example is the Senate restaurant service, which has been losing money for years – two million dollars in just the last year - so the Senate Oversight Committee, headed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the legislators recently approved privatizing the food service.

So, if the government (read Congress) can’t even successfully operate their own restaurant services when they have a captive market, what makes anyone think they can run something as large and complex as the nation’s health or education systems or provide the energy Americans need without increasing costs and causing significant impacts on our freedom of choice?

An interesting side note is the fact that, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, about half the 100 members of the Senate are millionaires and the average net worth of those in that illustrious body is $8.9 million. “By contrast, less than 1% of the U.S. population has a net worth of $1 million or more.” (The Agonist, November 24, 2006). So, here we have a group who are financially well off and can easily afford to pay market rate for their meals, taking advantage of their status to use taxpayer money to give themselves a break on the cost of their food service.

These are the same people who want us to believe that the government (they) can run the health care system for all Americans, solve the energy crisis, bring down the price of gas and food, resolve the complexities of financing the Social Security system and Medicare, in spite of the fact that they have actively participated in causing the problems in the first place.

In the final analysis, “the more things change, the more they stay the same” is still true. Notwithstanding all the hype about “change” in this year’s presidential race, I don’t see much of anything that’s different about the “change” that either candidate is promising. They may talk about “change,” but it will be business as usual when the dust settles after the election.

I would submit that the “change” America really needs is for our politicians and bureaucrats to get out of the way and let the people solve their own problems themselves, their way. Now that would be change I could believe in.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.”

Accomplishment is not just about what we do in life. It’s also about what we do with what we have. For example, Michele Obama and Cindy McCain are obviously both attractive, capable women, who are actively involved in their respective husband’s quest for the highest office in the land. But, there are conflicting impressions of the wives of the two presumptive presidential nominees: An angry, hostile woman who had to fight her way to the top or an Ice Queen, daughter of privilege?

A brief look at their individual backgrounds gives us some sense of the differences between them and what they may ultimately be like as First Lady.
Cindy McCain:

• Age: 53
• Raised in Phoenix, heiress to Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anheuser-Busch Brewery distributors in the U.S. As the only child in a wealthy family, she was a cheerleader and rodeo queen, later became a pilot, loves to drive race cars, and her daughter Meghan says, “Mom spoils our dogs silly.”
• Education: Master’s degree in special education from the University of Southern California.
• Occupation: Early years, high school teacher. Currently, Board chairwoman of Hensley & Co., Income: about $6 million in 2006. (Personal worth is estimated to be $100 million).
• Family: Met and married John McCain when she was 25 years old (he was 42), they have four children - Meghan, 23, who is currently writing a blog on the campaign trail; Jack, 21, currently at the U.S. Naval Academy; Jimmy, 19, is in the Marines and recently returned from Iraq; and Bridget, 16, whom Cindy brought home from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget had a severe cleft palate and has multiple surgeries.
• Board memberships and charitable involvements:
  >Chairwoman of Hensley & Co.
  >Operation Smile (provides reconstructive surgery to children with facial deformities around the world
  >CARE (fights global poverty)
  >Halo Trust (dedicated to land-mine removal)
  >Founder of American Voluntary Medical Team, 1988-1995 (provided emergency
  medical and surgical care to children in Third World Countries).

Cindy McCain also overcame a stroke that damaged her speech, right arm and leg. “Eight months later she ran and walked a half-marathon. She had a knee replacement last fall (2007) and six weeks later campaigned in snowy New Hampshire.” (The quiet force in McCain’s campaign, by Jill Lawrence, USA Today).

In addition, Mrs. McCain had an addiction to painkillers that were prescribed “as a result of spinal problems that developed after a series of miscarriages and giving birth to three children…she underwent treatment and attended meetings of Narcotics Anonymous as part of a deal with prosecutors who dropped charges.” (Flawed Cindy McCain has a grudge list, by Tony Allen-Mills, TIMESONLINE, February 3, 2008).

Michele Obama:

• Age: 44
• Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, her father was a city water plant employee and her mother worked as a secretary at Spiegel’s catalog store. She was raised in a conventional two-parent home on Chicago’s South side, where the family convened around the dinner table nightly.
• Education: Princeton (graduated cum laude) and Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, she participated in political demonstrations advocating the hiring of professors who are minorities.
• Occupation: Hospital executive (Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where her salary was $121,910 until her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, when it was increased to $316,962.
• Family: Met her husband through her work as a corporate lawyer, married 14 years, with two daughters, ages 10 and 7).

“Michele Obama has achieved enormous professional success, political influence and personal acclaim in America. Ivy League-educated, she’s been lauded by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World’s Most Inspiring Women; by Vanity Fair as one of the 10 World’s Best-Dressed Women; and named one of ‘The Harvard 100’ most influential alumni.” (Michele Obama’s America – and Mine, by Michele Malkin, Townhall.com, February 20, 2008)

Throughout the campaign she has made a “commitment to be away overnight only once a week — to campaign only two days a week and be home by the end of the second day” for their two children.

When she and Barack were engaged, she once requested that he meet her prospective boss when she was considering her first career move. Now, she is her husband’s closest adviser. Early in the presidential race she did not portray herself as an adviser, however. In fact, she was quoted in interviews saying, “My job is not a senior adviser.”

However, in an article titled, “Michelle Obama, First Lady Wannabe,” Carey Roberts reports that Mrs. Obama has also been credited with making the following statements, among others (ChronWatch.com):

• ”I’ve got a loud mouth, but Barack is very able to deal with a strong woman, which is
  one of the reasons why he can be president, because he can deal with me.”
• In a visit with a group of mothers at a day nursery in Zanesville, Ohio, she noted
  that her family is “spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports
  supplements.” She also told them, “Don’t go into corporate America. You know,
  become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse.” (Note:
  Interesting advice from someone who was educated in elite schools, became an
  attorney with a major law firm and was subsequently employed as an executive
  with a large hospital corporation, at an annual salary in excess of $300,000.)
• ”We have spent the last decade talking a good game about family values, but I haven’t seen much evidence that we value women or family values.”

Carey Roberts also noted that in Michele Obama’s appearance on “The View,” she “deplored the fact that ‘People aren’t used to strong women.’ It should also be noted that, speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on February 18, 2008, she said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country.”

“Obama’s closest bosom-buddies refer to her as ‘The Taskmaster.’ Others would say that she has a monumental chip on her shoulder.”

There has been considerable commentary about the fact that John McCain lacks executive experience. He has never run anything, such as a business or government entity, that is, a state, large agency, etc. (Of course, neither has Barack Obama.), and many pundits recommend that he select someone as his Vice-Presidential running-mate who has management background. However, we never hear anything about the fact that Senator McCain’s wife and closest confidant has clearly demonstrated executive abilities as chairwoman of a large company, which has nearly doubled in size under her leadership. She has made it clear that she does not want to be involved in making policy, but that doesn’t mean her husband can’t or shouldn’t seek her advice on management matters.

Everyone will make their own evaluation of these two women, but if we were electing a First Lady, Cindy McCain would get my vote hands down. She is the type of woman I would like to see in the White House: engaged, experienced, a demonstrated fighter who has known and overcome severe adversity, is openly patriotic with two sons in the military, one of whom has served in Iraq, empathetic to the plight of those less fortunate, not just a doer, but a true leader in her own right.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved

NOTE: Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at “opinionfest.com.