First of all, let's define what is meant by change when that freighted term is uttered, as it is ad nauseum, by political candidates of all persuasions. In the present political climate, change is always, and without exception, meant to imply the freshest of starts, a decided, even bold move away from a dreadful status quo that is assumed to already be firmly, if not hopelessly, entrenched. In my survey of candidates on both sides of the aisle, it is axiomatic that the more a candidate employs the word change, the more they tout themselves as, in so many words, "an agent of change", the odds strongly favor that they are anything but. To know this is not simply a matter of possessing good, old fashioned, horse sense, or donning a mentality of deep cynicism, or even realizing that the excessive expression of a particular sentiment is evidence that one is protesting too much. No, no such modes of insight, if that is indeed what they are, are required.
The most important thing one needs to know, perhaps the only thing, is that when a genuine agent of change is in one's midst, one can tell because such a person has a record to back it up. It's that simple. What is also worthwhile to recognize is that an authentic agent of change doesn't use the word change, except sparingly, because the very essence of their campaign from soup to nuts, represents a challenge to orthodoxy and the status quo. Words tend to be employed when deeds are not sufficiently abundant to make the point. Last, and by no means least, a sure sign that one is in the presence of someone who genuinely wants to shake things up, is that such candidates, without fail, receive unfair and/or insufficient coverage even when they have proven themselves worthy of respect and attention.
This is why Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and to a lesser extent, Huckabee, all fail the test of authenticity as agents of change. In the case of Hillary Clinton, who seems to use the term change more frequently than any other candidate, she has voted to support such modern day abominations as The War in Iraq and Homeland Security to a degree that one can only understand her as an agent of change in the direction of, among other deeply unsavory trends, shredding The Constitution. Next to someone like Ron Paul, Clinton and the rest of the aforementioned candidates appear like nothing but a cadre of presidential wannabees whose slogans should read," Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"