While I would like to share your optimism, I think voters are looking not just for a change from Republican rule, but a real vision for the future. As you say, they want someone who "will actually work in their interests".
It is indeed unfortunate that no leading Democratic Presidential candidate, or indeed no remotely likely candidate, offers that vision or will actually work in the interests of the people.
I offered an initial response in the comment section upon which I would like to expand. My basic thesis is simple and follows: The desire for a person to lead who clearly "articulates a vision for the future" is a kind of hero-worship that is deeply anti-democratic, and contrary to the best traditions and history of America. More to the point, it is, in my view, contrary to the trends in our country currently, and such a political savior would be viewed with distrust by a majority of American voters regardless of political persuasion. It is precisely these qualities that our current President exhibits - a kind of Messiah complex - that makes so many wary of him, not just here at home but around the world.
With the exceptions of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps FDR in the first months of his first term, there have not been Presidents who have acted far ahead of the stated desires of the constituencies who elected them. Indeed, what makes these three men of historical importance was precisely the unique abilities they brought to the office of the Presidency, and gave them the strength and courage to work against a variety of factors to succeed at what they determined were the most vital tasks they confronted. I suppose, for the sake of honesty I should include Richard Nixon as a negative example, as well as George W. Bush - they followed or follow their convictions without regard to public opinion; look what they got for their troubles.
There is no doubt we live in troubled, perhaps even dangerous times. There is little disagreement, should one consult the polls, that our country is headed in the wrong direction, led by a clique of elites who have no desire to do anything but maintain their own power at all costs. The unresponsiveness of our current system seems to cry out for someone who will actually heed the call of the American people for leadership. Except, of course, it isn't really leadership that is called for; rather, it is the ability to follow, to do what the vast majority of the American people want done. To insist, as DL does in his comment, that we need someone to "articulate a vision for the future" ignores the fact that the candidates of both political parties are doing exactly that. The question is begged, of course, concerning the nature of that vision, and its relevance to our current situation.
For example, Tom Tancredo has a vision for America. So does Rudy Giuliani. John McCain's vision for America is as clear as day - he is a journalist's favorite candidate because he rarely closes his mouth. On the other side of the political fence, we have the various visions of Sen. Christopher Dodd, of former Sen. John Edwards, of Sen. Hillary Clinton, and former Rep. and Ambassador Bill Richardson among others. We are not bereft of vision, or visions, should one choose to accurately describe the situation. What is missing is a synching up, as it were, of such a vision with the wishes of the person decrying the lack of any such vision. Because DL feels none of the major party candidates do so - indeed, he does not see an alternative on the horizon - he bemoans the lack of leadership, of serious choices in the ensuing Presidential contest.
Such a criticism is, I believe, behind the media-driven desire to see Fred Thompson enter the Republican race for the Presidency. I heard former Sen. Minority/Majority Leader Tom Daschle on the Bill Press show this morning talk about Thompson, including the fact that Thompson's work ethic, how can I put this delicately, left something to be desired. Along with inoperable cancer, his long-running ties to various K Street lobbying firms, and his rather conservative voting record, I doubt that Thompson, despite the fawning of the press corps, will do much after an initial burst of enthusiasm should he decide to enter the fray in earnest. Yet, it remains a fact that it is the lack of a single candidate with all the qualities Republican voters desire in a candidate, most important of all being the ability articulate a vision, to be a hero to the huddled masses of disgruntled right-wing voters, that lies at the heart of Republican discontent.
At its core, the desire for a single person to emerge who clearly articulates a vision for the future, round whom we can all rally, is the desire to transfer responsibility for this vision from the people to the person in whom we can invest all our hopes, desires, and fears. As someone deeply distrustful of the very idea of hero-worship, I cannot state strongly enough that such yearning is dangerous, regardless of political pedigree; I would much rather trust the American people - even when they make the occasional boner, such as re-electing George W. Bush - than an individual no matter how clever or intelligent, and no matter how much that person's vision coincides with my own.
It is elitist and anti-democratic in the extreme to dismiss American opinion and the occasional failures of judgment, seeking instead the wisdom of an articulate philosopher-king who can give us what we lack. While not satisfied at all with the current crop of candidates, I rest my faith in the eventual outcome of next year's election upon the dissatisfaction of the American public with our current situation, and the innate abilities of any of the Democratic candidates to outperform any of the Republicans in the field. While this does not satisfy earnest ideologues, it does satisfy my own preference for the wisdom of the American people. In other words, I subsume my own ideological preferences to the great mass of the American people, even when they are wrong, because they have been ahead of elite opinion time and again over the past fifteen years. Time will out for the truth, as they say.
I have no desire for a political savior. I have no desire for a national savior. I have no desire for the magic bullet of one person to deliver us from the evils of our current situation. Rather, I trust the people to force the candidates to move toward them, to answer their plea for something so simple, so banal, and so uninteresting, as simple competent governance. I realize this is hardly the stuff of legend or a slogan to call the troops to rally round the flag; it is, however, the desire of the American people. My vote will go to the person who, no matter how inarticulately or confusedly, manages to show that he or she will respond to the American people, doing competent work, and understanding the difference between governing and leading.
May the most able person win.
