So this is what Republicans have been reduced to arguing about, is it? The descent into desperation has begun.
The most apparent reconciliation of these disparate notions is that Obama achieved change. He changed whether Washington was run from the inside or outside. It is now run from the outside.
By the Koch Brothers?
They bitch and moan that Obama’s changing things too much (you know with his marksist, communist health care and stuff) and now that he’s powerless to change things enough.
Let’s review the quote: “The most important lesson I’ve learned is you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.”
Now keeping in mind how hyper-literal conservatives can be at times (e.g., “You didn’t build that”), please note that Obama said that “you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.” Clearly, Obama was not talking about HIS ability to change Washington. Otherwise he would have said, “I can’t change Washington from the inside. I can only change it from the outside.” The only possible “you” in that context is the person who asked the question, which I believe was a Univision reporter.
It clearly follows, therefore, that you means the Univision reporter, and only this Univision reporter can change Washington from the outside.
Boom. OP is destroyed.
I’m with OMG on this one. Now that Obama is “inside” he is part of the problem that needs to be fixed. I intend to do my best at the polling place to keep Romney from being tainted in the same way.
Lots of people, who voted for his, ‘Hope and Change’ platform, well understood, that change is hard in Washington.
In the end they voted for someone, whom they believed, possessed the integrity to truly try and change Washington. Whether or not he could succeed, they wanted someone really trying, not someone who’s already part of the problem.
Seriously, if this is all that Romney supporters have to try and discredit Obama with, it’s going to be an easy couple months.
“Ooh! Oooh! He said ‘insider!’ *He’s *an insider! Ergo, he can’t bring change! Lawyered.”
Good luck with that.
Also, there was gold fringe on the flag.
Totally off-topic: elbows, that is a lot of commas. 
But besides that, I agree with your sentiments.
Problem is, he didn’t try. He embraced the culture of Washington.
He also can’t make up his mind what change is. He said in 2008, “I am the change”. Now it’s us. “Change” is just a word to him. It focus groups well, so he uses it a lot.
Bullshit we “get the change [we] want.” The change we WANT is a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, and the Speaker’s gavel in the house.
Ah, and what change will occur? More stimulus? Or something new? How many times will they try stimulus before admitting failure? Until the bond markets stop lending?
When did he say “I am the change”?
Your somewhat unsuccessful liberal baiting is pointless. Nobody other than a naive 19-year old believes that anybody can or wants to actually change the politics in WDC. Ideologues come and go, but the way things are done doesn’t change. The money machine keeps turning and good governance stays on the sidelines. I rolled my eyes when Obama said he would change things, and I roll my eyes when Romney says it, and have been doing so for every candidate since Kennedy. It’s Demagoguery 101. Bush said he would return honor to the White House, for god’s sake. To change a political system’s operating principles (or lack thereof) requires revolution.
I agree with you-your logic just doesn’t sail.
OMG, do you actually find this sound bite significant in some way? In some Large way? Game changing?
No it’s not a lie. Where the fuck would you get such an outlandish idea? Romney is worse than President Obama.* ANY Republican is worse than ANY Democrat.* In fact, it is imperative that America NEVER have a Republican president again. This is just basic, axiomatic, not-open-to-argument FACT.
Sheesh. It’s like you haven’t even been reading any of my posts for the past several months. I’m SURE I mentioned it…
*as a putative POTUS
ALL of if to “kill the bill?” Interesting.
For the purposes of that statement, would you be good enough to delineate what “kill” means? Does it mean “prevent the passage of any bill at all?” Or does it mean “prevent the passage of the bill exactly as passed (while leaving open the possibility of passing a bill that more closely resembles the single-payer ideal that the lefties are always yammering about)?”
I doubt this. I suspect he’s merely trying to get the board liberals/Obama supporters in to admitting something or other. A “gotcha” if you will.
There’s nothing big picture about this sort of thing, as far as the campaign goes; he’s merely playing a logic game and trying to lawyer a petty admission out of his opponents.