After surviving the "Bush" years, like many others, I am pretty geared up for a change. Change is a word we have been hearing a lot of lately. What is change? The Webster dictionary identifies change as "become or makes different" "substitute or replace something" pass from one state to another" or "remove or replace something". So exactly what do we want changed? The idea of it is a bit overwhelming.

Due to the course the economy has taken as well as the issue of the war and the dissatisfaction regarding the health care system; most Americans are ready for a new path. Although, I am no fan of the current administration, I am not entirely sure if they are completely to blame for the all that has gone wrong.

According to the Paw Research Center below is the average of the replies by Democrats, Republicans and Independents on an assortment of issues:

1. When asked about the sustaining the Assertive National Security Policy, from 1999 through 2001 a steady increase was observed in all of the three party affiliates. It has collectively dropped since 2002.

2. Personal Financial Contentment: Republicans were more inclined towards optimism when reflecting on the economy much more than Democrats or the Independents. Overall though from late 2002 it there has been a steady drop in confidence over the financial condition of our economy.

3. The question: Should the government help the disadvantaged even if the National Debt increases as a result?

From 1993 through 1995 all the political parties were in concurrence that the response to this would be thumbs down. In 1996 the answer gradually increased to an answer of yes. From 2003 to current, the answers increased unanimously to favor a "yes" answer.

These polls clearly point out that Republicans, Democrats and Independents similarly are looking for that change.

It does seem that confidence in our "Powers in Office" definitely took a plunge in 2002. How are these two Democratic candidates different from each other? Can they bring forth the change we are looking for? The physical differences are obvious. Judgment is abundant regarding the fact that we have a female contender and a black contender. The views seem to range from it being the only basis to vote for these candidates to not being a concern at all.

Actually, in my belief, it does matter. We are finally in a political arena where the reality of a woman or minority president is possible. Although many of us voters are ready for this, it also brings a certain amount of fear.

Looking at why people vote for who they do is interesting. Americans who are not that focused on the issues may vote based upon instinct, candidate personality, the way a nominee dresses or yes whether male or female. A friend of mine based her vote in the last election on her husband's desires.

It is difficult to gage the differences in these two candidates. Where do you go to get actual facts about the political stance of the two leading Democrats? It is true information can be found throughout the media in print, television, radio or the Internet. How do you untangle the unending information to know what is truthful and what is not?

I have decided that experience dictates my choice. Who has the experience? Let's face it, when you are forced to visit the hospital emergency room and in walks the student intern who asks the usual diagnostic questions; do you not begin to think to yourself- Where is the "real" doctor ? It is not that you do not like the pleasant intern; it is that you desire to have the experience - the veteran doctor.

It is true that the students can bring new views to the table. But ultimately - ideas are wonderful, but it is the long term experience that we tend to rely on.

So when I vote I am apt to go with experience. I believe that the more experienced of the two is with Hilary Clinton. I feel secure in her durability and know-how. I do like Barack Obama. And I have no doubt that someday he will make a great person in command. But in this author's estimation I prefer to vote for an experienced, weathered contender.