What is the Obama/Hillary Change?

These two have been arguing about who can "most effectively" bring change to America, with quite vocal supporters on each side. Yet...after looking through the candidates' websites and comparing exit polls to see what groups identify with which candidate, I'm feeling pretty clueless.

Take the economy.

Both advocate tax cuts for the middle class and call Bush's tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich," despite the largest rate cuts being upon the lowest income. What are they really saying? What defines the middle class, and what % of a rate cut can they expect? This seems like empty rhetoric for increasing taxes, especially upon the rich, while implementing new tax plans like health savings accounts, which only save taxes by expending more effort. Neither are clear on this policy, providing no estimates of how much money the middle class will save, or even who constitutes the middle class. This seems to clearly say to me: no to little change.

Moreover, nearly all of their other plans for the economy require either increased spending or decreased American income. For example, they both want more publicly-funded research, and health care plans, while wanting to cap carbon-based fuel emissions. They both want to protect American jobs through trade policy, while forcing other nations who want to trade with us to increase their government regulation. This all means higher consumer prices, less trade and economic growth, and larger government spending, in plain English.

Finally, they both call for a balanced budget, which is impossible in keeping with their prior suggestions.

As far as Iraq goes, where they are most strongly advocating a change in policy, both advocate nothing. They advocate withdrawing from Iraq...except to curtail terrorists and protecting our interests. Both maintain they can create peace in Iraq through diplomacy and financial aid efforts. Yet neither truly attempted to end the war while in Congress. Hillary even supported it and her husband's use of force in dealing with Iraq.

This is NO change in policy. This is the traditional foreign policy of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, which attempt to convince us that only the President can start or end wars, that we must police the world to avoid terrorist or rogue dictator threats, and that we have an obligation to broker peace by buying off both sides of any other conflict. It is plain and simple an interventionist policy, with no clearly defined barriers on the use of our military or our tax dollars.

In a nutshell, both advocate increasing the size and scope of government without regard to constitutional limitations on power. Both seek to tinker with the tax system with no clear goals, except to bolster a false confidence that the rich are paying their "fair" share (always arbitrarily determined). Both seek to draw distance from the unpopular Iraq War without any real change in overall policy.

Where is this change I am missing? Is it just me, or have we forgotten every previous political campaign in history? Do candidates usually NOT call for a dis-continuation of policies the public doesn't like? Do candidates usually NOT call for more wealth to all and no cost to anyone? Do candidates usually NOT call for a less corrupt government? Rhetoric and pandering on the campaign trail are NOT change; they are the standard practice of politicians, deceiving people while advancing the tyranny they claim to fight.

The only change I see is in having a woman or a black as President, and the exit polls agree with me.