Why Dems May Prefer "Old Tricks" to "Change"

I was just reading a HuffPost article about the president and his promises of change. Oh, you say, that one. Anyway, it was specifically about pharmaceuticals, lobbyists, Medicare etc.

And I then just smacked my hand against my forehead an said "d'oh!"

Why? (Other than that this may be an obvious point?)

If we look at Washington from a view of 30,000 feet we see a town in which both parties rely on a system of "special interests," a politics of privileged access, and the kind of who's-who-ing that most people who dislike politics cite as the precise reason for its distastefulness. It's the same "culture of corruption" message that led Dems to massive victory in 2006.

The trouble is, Democrats govern in a similar way, most prospective candidates started working toward public office by building insider networks, and the all-powerful determinant of electoral viability, namely money, is concentrated in few enough hands to make most high donor rolls look like a who's who of national politics.

In other words, the president's campaign may have set up an impossible goal for Democrats: change the way you govern, run for office, and set up potential candidates to run, all without losing any ground and maximizing your electability. Did the president pull this rug out from under his own party without knowing he was doing it? Did he do it for the general welfare, despite foresight that his party might suffer?

I ask because I am skeptical of most people's altruism, either the president's or that of the network of individuals whose livelihoods and the relevance of whose skills are predicated on DC looking largely like it did before the president arrived (as president). Real change is in few people's interests when we speak of those professionally involved in politics.