The Current Discussion: With the U.S. presidential primary season in full swing, there's a lot of talk here about "change" vs. "competence" in leadership. Which does your country have more of? Is that a good thing?

Back in 1982, Felipe González obtained a landslide victory using the key word "Cambio" (change). He was the first socialist elected in Spain since the Popular Front in 1936. Obviously, he and his party didn't have any government experience at all, apart from some leftist mayors elected just one year before. Indeed, he had listened to what most of the Spaniard citizens wanted and built a programme based on change.

González stayed in power until 1996. The new conservative leader, José María Aznar raised the flag of "democratic regeneration". With his new breath of fresh air he confronted a socialist record of many achievements, several forgotten promises and some severe corruption cases.

Blair was the New Labour after the Thatcher years. Her liberal reforms injected competence into the British economy but the working class was fed up and need a social change.

Sarkozy proclaimed J' ai changé (I' ve changed) in a fundamental speech launching his campaign in January 2007. He set aside his years in various gaullist cabinets even if he was considered a very competent Home Office minister. Instead, he introduces himself as the man needed to change France after years of frozen ideas. He suceded.

From my distant point of view, Obama’s “change” is the correct answer to eight years of Bushism and the economic turmoil ahead. Hillary’s “experience” is not welcome, at least in the primary season. She has made a mistake in timing. In 2008, competence may be a Republican word.