Barack Obama seems to be one of the more likable candidates on the campaign trail from either party. Heck, he might even get my vote, if it weren’t for the fact that I think his political views are hideously leftist — but then, substance over form is the whole point of the endeavor, isn’t it? At least, I used to think so.
In spite of Obama’s big win in Iowa last night, his mantra of “unity” and “change” had better get some meat behind it fairly quickly or else he’s a goner. After all, “unity” and “change” are fairly subjective terms if left untethered. Just ask the residents of Jonestown.
Members of Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple cult were motivated toward unity and change — and boy did they get it. Al Qaeda is unified for change, too. So are financial scammers that free unsuspectingly greedy dingbats from their life savings.
History is rife with examples of misery and repossessed freedoms that were the result of a quest for “unity” and “change.” Obama must clarify what exactly he means by this so Democrats can choose, in an educated way, the candidate who is most likely to redistribute the wealth with “unity” — until all that is left in our pockets is “change.”
In closing, how ticked off must Hillary be? A third place finish behind a skinny, black political plebe and an effeminate ambulance chaser? Heads are gonna roll. Rest assured, on a campaign plane en route to New Hampshire, the dust is being blown off a few FBI files as we speak.