We are now able to survey the wreckage of the political primary season landscape. Still standing as the contenders: John McCain, Barak Obama, and Hilary Clinton.

The dilemma: most Democrats and Independents say they want dramatic, meaningful change to come from the presidential election in November.
In order for that to happen, there must be a real break from the past: the voters must elect either Obama or Clinton, resulting in either a man of color or a woman as leader of the country.

No one's crystal ball seems very clear at the moment as to whether voters will go with the devil they know (McCain), or one of the other two candidates, both of whom truly represent a change in how the presidency looks, at the very least, even though realistically neither Obama or Clinton seem likely to change the 2 party system, or reform the government, or go after political corruption in any meaningful way.

Which means we are, in practical terms, likely going to delude ourselves into believing that electing someone who isn't a white guy can actually bring about meaningful reforms and systemic change.

We know Big Media and Big Money are hyping the race/gender issue, and framing it in a propaganda context that changing the race/gender of the head honcho politician in the nation equates with making meaningful government reforms, bringing about long overdue systemic change in the 2 party system, and rooting out corruption. So in this sense, the emperor clearly has no new outfits to wear to the inaugural parade.

I don't mean to pooh-pooh the fact that electing Clinton/Obama isn't a big break with tradition--it is. But is it anything more than that? And will voters choose that, believing they are voting to change the system and root out corruption at the highest levels?

Or is this just a first baby step towards breaking the system in one or two more election cycles, in order to remake it in a way that better fulfills the needs of our globalized world?