But I hope someone who is working for their individual campaigns is telling these candidates that winning the Presidency on the concept of “change” is not the best way to win the hearts and minds of the populace in the long-term. Why, you ask? Simple. What does change mean to you?

Think about it. What does change mean to you? Change, to me, means that I won’t be stuck in a position where roughly 35% of my income goes towards paying student loans when I was a straight A student all throughout my academic career. My change means that my desire to trade in my current gas-guzzling SUV for a hybrid car would become a reality in short order (my finances say otherwise). For me, change means that we stop spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on other countries and we redirect that money back into America and American technology. I consider change no longer hearing the right/left bickering in America and, instead, seeing a strong third party or even a third and fourth party rise to break the grip that this double-headed monster has on American politics.

I could go on and talk about how change should mean more tax dollars directed towards upgrading America’s physical infrastructure (roads and bridges) and how change means that local police forces will be mandated to truly serve and protect and not act as a fundraiser for local governments. I would say that change means taking care of unfinished business: i.e. making the accepted language for the last 400 years in the American settlements, colonies, and states the official language of this country. Change should mean that if the United Nations is going to be a feasible world-body, then it should be equitably funded by ALL member countries and it should be corruption free. My concept of “change” means that we – as a nation – will respect every last letter in the Constitution and if that means that the majority of America rules over the minority, then that’s what it means (it’s what it’s supposed to mean!).

There’s so much more that “change” means to me, but this is exactly my point. Any Presidential candidate who embodies change (and Obama embodies it the most right now) will need to have a clearly defined agenda during the second half of this Presidential campaign. Saying “change” will win primaries today and it may win an election tomorrow, but when the American people do NOT see things changing around them, then things can start to get very, very ugly.

What does change mean to you? I’d be interested to know.

In an odd circumstance, it appears that the story coming out of Iowa is all about New Hampshire. Given the close time frame between the two contests, all of the candidates spent last night in Iowa (except McCain and Giuliani) and woke up this morning in New Hampshire. For the Republicans, I think we’re in for a tough fight between McCain and Romney in New Hampshire and there is always the possibility of having the Huckabee surge continue and overtake either of the front runners. If Huckabee places a close second to McCain or wins, I think it’ll signal the end for the Romney campaign. The x factor here is whether or not the New Hampshire voters are swayed by Iowa and the inevitability of Romney going big-time negative with his campaigning.

For the Democrats, I think we’ve got an interesting situation going on. Clinton is not one to take losing in Iowa lightly, so the x factor for the Republican race carries over to the Democratic race, too. It is almost inevitable that the Clinton war machine will fire up and start throwing some attacks at Obama and Edwards now that she’s in 3rd place. How the New Hampshire voters respond to this will set the stage for the primary vote. And I think everyone needs to keep an eye on Bill Richardson. Governor Richardson claimed this morning that entrance polls showed him at 10% going into the caucuses last night. If this is true (and it seems true) and the Biden, Dodd, and disenfranchised supporters go to Richardson, then he could possibly poll at 13% – 15% going into the primary elections in the Western states, where he is expected to do well. Richardson taking a strong third place finish behind Obama and Clinton after Super Tuesday is over isn’t out of the question by any means.

And finally, there is the independent factor in these races, which I think benefits only Ron Paul. When I say independent, I’m talking about those people who are apolitical or those who despise Republicans and Democrats equally. Congressman Paul has made a small impact on the Republican race and I think that if he plays his cards right he can make a much bigger one in the Presidential race. He’s obviously not going to win the nomination, but he has the support and now he has the name recognition to drop out of the race some time in April and join with Michael Bloomberg and his band of independent, bipartisan thinkers. If this happens (and it seems somewhat unlikely), then I would bet a Ron Paul independent run could pull as much as 25% of the national vote, if not more.

But that’s the pipe dream stance in the overall picture. Now, add Richardson to the Bloomberg/Paul scenario and I believe you’ve got a bipartisan Presidential winner in 2008.