“Blue-green”? That’s a new one.

I guess it comes from “blue,” as in “red state” and “blue state,” and “green” as in “environmentalist.” Maybe it’d be easier to just call him “aqua.”

But this to me is an example of why Obama is so vulnerable. In 2008 he campaigned on “change,” but the only “changes” he brought–and quite obviously the only “change” he ever intended to bring–were increases in the “business as usual” politics that he promised to “change.”

I think this is very important. The concept of “change”–abandon the old and usher in the new–is popular, especially among political leftists: people who like to see themselves as “progressive” and on the cutting edge, courageously battling the crusty old oppressors and leading humanity toward the proletariat utopia, and so forth.

I see a lot of advertisers using the “change” motif, too, and for no other reason than because it works. The attendant products and services aren’t really new or different, but if people can be made to believe that by using them they’re “part of the movement”–part of some “enlightened elite” who have access to some obscure, superior truth–they’ll open their wallets.

It’s exploitation at its old-fashioned best, and it works, and it works well. Obama campaigned as the “change” guy, thus endearing himself to the political left.

Any candidate who makes the point that not only was Obama’s “change” promise a falsehood, but also a very manipulative falsehood–because he knew it’d be one the left would embrace–will definitely chisel a large percentage of voters away from Obama’s voting block.

Some voters will vote for Obama no matter what he does. But not all leftists are dumb, blind, stupid followers. Some–those who lean more toward “independent”–will be taken aback by the way Obama not only lied to them but, in the lying, also exploited their perhaps most deeply held desires and definitions of themselves, and fooled them into embracing a triple dose of that which they pride themselves for loathing.

The bottom line is that Obama is neither who nor what he says he is. He’s more or less a hard-core, old-school, dirtbag politician who uses hard-core, old-school, dirtbag political techniques. More and more, he looks like just another power-mad despot who believes in nothing so much as his own greatness. He’s everything he promised to “change.” He’s everything he campaigned against. He doesn’t believe in the core leftist orthodoxy, but he recognizes that it’s a very easy to exploit for his own gains . . . and I think any astute candidate can bring that out.

Again: some people will vote for Obama no matter what he does . . . but not enough to get him a second term. Any candidate who can show–and it shouldn’t be hard to do because the evidence is more or less overwhelming and out in the open–that Obama is everything he said he’d “change,” and everything he campaigned against, will take a big enough chunk of voters away from him to send him on to whatever it is he’s planned to do after his presidential stint.

That being said, I’ll add that even if Obama loses the next election, we will not have heard the last of him or, for that matter, of his wife. They’ll be powerful in leftist politics for decades to come.