"Ready for change.  Ready to lead."  Most coverage I've seen or read about the last Democratic debate focused on Hillary, either about how she lost it in response to Edwards, or about how sexist anyone is who thinks she didn't keep her cool.

Yet, she was the one who was filmed saying "I want to make change but I've already made change!" and "The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made."  

What change would that be?  The biggest "change" I've seen her make during her self-proclaimed "35 years worth of experience" was to the travel office staff in the White House, while Bill was still in office.  As a senator, she co-sponsored a bill or two; that was the extent of it.

Thirty-five years worth of experience, would, by necessity, claim her years as a political wife in Arkansas as "experience."  The voters in Iowa didn't buy that, and it looks like the voters in New Hampshire won't either.

My feeling about the debate was that she got angry, and it showed on camera.  I don't think she became unglued or unhinged.  Indeed, compared to the legendary stories from former staffers of hers about her throwing around ashtrays and lamps, this was nothing.  More than anything, I think she's dismayed and angry that the road to her coronation hasn't been as smooth as she anticipated.

She also appeared to take credit for SCHIP.  A quick Google search will prove that bill was hashed out between Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch in 1997.  It's debatable as to how successful its passage has been.  Statistics show that an ever-growing number of children of working-class parents still don't qualify for the healthcare program because their parents make slightly too much money, and have no family healthcare plan of their own from their employers.

She seems to be running on her husband's experience.  She may well have been his sounding board while he was in office, but she was not privvy to any policy meetings.  The one thing with which Bill entrusted her was a national healthcare plan in 1993; it was a disaster.  Her own experience as a Senator for seven years is questionable, inasmuch as it doesn't appear that she was any sort of policy maker.

Let it also not be forgotten that when she ran for re-election as the junior senator from NY in 2006, she promised that she would serve out her full term, and not run for president.  I doubt anyone bought that lie, but they re-elected her, regardless.  It was clear what her ambitions were back when she and Bill carpetbagged it to Westchester so she could make a run for senate, when the position became available.

It's really difficult to make a case for being the candidate of change, while touting 35 years worth of experience, then saying the equivalent of "don't get your hopes up for change, folks!"  Her logic completely escapes me.

Edwards couldn't even win his home state running for Veep with Gore, so he's most likely not much of a factor.  Obama strikes me as thoughtful and intelligent, but not ultimately electable.  He may prove me wrong by Super Tuesday; it's a bit too early to tell.  For now, he seems to have momentum, while Hillary appears to be digging her own grave with voters.

Regarding the Republican primary, I'm not impressed with any of the candidates.  More's the shame.  Though Libertarian by conviction, I am a registered Republican, and have voted in every election I could since I was old enough to register to vote (barring a local school board election or two).  I want my income and property tax dollars to cover the cost of the basics (namely law enforcement), but otherwise, I want government to be a minimal intrusion in my daily existence.

Not one of the candidates I've seen in either major party is impressive.  This election should prove interesting to follow.