In New York for three events -- in which he raked in $2 million from the very type of fat cats he daily condemns -- he pleaded with voters (Reuters' terminology, not mine) to be patient with him and to give him more time to fulfill his 2008 "hope and change" campaign promise.
He told supporters: "After all that is happening in Washington, it may be tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought. It has been three wrenching years for this country." I'll say.
Well, I, for one, fault him not for failing to honor that promise, but for keeping it. We've had change, all right, and precisely the kind he had in mind. One can only imagine how much more change he would have effected if he'd had his way -- if democracy, as he has complained, weren't so "slow" and so "messy." Worse still, let's imagine how much more change he'd attempt if, God forbid, he were to purloin a second term.
His words to the friendly audiences confirm what attentive observers already understand about his remaining ambitions. He said: "Every single thing that we care about is at stake in this next election. It's going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decades in the making."
It would be one thing if Obama had been referring to the entitlement structure that the liberal establishment has imposed on Americans over the past half-century or more. But if entitlements were his concern, he wouldn't be single-handedly obstructing their structural reform. No, he's talking about the sluggish state of the economy, which absolutely wouldn't take even two years -- much less a decade -- to turn around if he would remove his socialist boot from its gasping throat.
But we should note that Obama cleverly gets double mileage out of conveniently shifting the goal posts. Back in his messianic era, he wasn't fecklessly cautioning that it would take a generation to bring about real change or to turn the economy around. He said that with his "stimulus" bill, unemployment would top out at 8 percent and that if he didn't turn things around within his first term, the voters wouldn't give him another chance.
But by rewriting history to erase those statements, he hopes to get a pass on his failure to produce in the time period he proposed, and he shiftily bolsters his case that his policies haven't failed at all, that they only need more time to work, which they will unless reversed by hyper-partisan Republicans.
Famed Voting Rights/Anti-Poverty Activist Fannie Lou Hamer Called Abortion "Genocide" | Ryan Bomberger