Whatever you want to call it.

Obviously, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be cassoulet. Or so any American loving liberal would tell you.... If you just love the liberal double-standards go ahead and raise your hand, but for the rest of Americans with fully functioning brain cells, deciphering the scope of how far the die hard Democrats are willing to go is hard to gauge. Case in point is the not too sudden reference that VP hopeful Sarah Palin is somehow not a Christian (along with McCain, Bush, etc...). Apparently the Democrats must be correct in this revelation because their great shepard and provider Lord Obama has probably told them this - and as all liberals know, the Lord Obama can see clearly into the windows of the soul... Although it may be intriguing that Democrats are still suffering seizures ever since Palin's introduction into the spotlight, the wonderful liberal double-standard has long since been at work. Very interesting to note that the supposed "non-Christian" Palin is a "terrible" parent for having a pregnant daughter and is fully to blame (was Sarah there when her daughter got pregnant?), while the great Obama has conceded in The Audacity of Hope that he has been a distant husband and goes in length describing Michelle's anger and resentment over him never being home with his family. Barry is virtually aloof when in the company of his own children - that tends to happen when you're never home because you've spent your entire "career" campaigning for political office. With little surprise though, any terrorist-loving, tree-humping liberal will tell you what a great husband and father the great Lord Obama is. Gotta love those double-standards... Sort of like Joe Biden openly telling America that Hillary would be better qualified as VP than he would himself, and then Biden later arguing that Palin as a vice-president (or president) would be a step back for women in America - and the brain dead liberals just nod their collective little peanut heads in agreement.... While Biden is as much of a walking contradiction to Obama's "change" mantra, the greater picture reveals that this circus of an election cycle purely transcends popularity over politics and policy. This mere notion is no more evident than the Obama rock star campaign of "change" while ducking the truth of an all too common Democrat tax-and-spend political platform... until Sarah Palin comes into the picture, and then even Michelle Obama suddenly believes that policy is now important and that looks, popularity, and emotion should not play a role in this election anymore.

Of course, Michelle Obama knows as well as her great husband that the majority of Obama supporters have never taken the time to try to understand the Obama political philosophy. The Obama herd is mesmorized by the great Harvard education of a man who cannot even speak without the assistance of speech writers, teleprompters, and P.R. coaches. The Obama herd is also transfixed by Obama's law degree, which is almost laughable when you consider that lawyers are generally considered by the American public to be deceitful, dishonest, and the butt of countless jokes in reference to honesty and ethics. The most compelling aspect of this Democratic campaign is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are both lawyers, or in other words, professional liars... If libs believe that McCain and Palin are liars, woe to the Republican duo for not having the certified credentials of the professionals.

While Obama is believed to have the upper hand over McCain in the subject of economics - who wouldn't agree that a trillion dollars in new spending being paid for by tax payers already troubled by a weakened economy is a great idea? Apparently, Obama's "brilliance" (brought on by his Harvard education?) has revealed that penalizing America's most productive members of society with excesses of targeted taxation will somehow spur economic growth, which really makes no sense, but crying for "change" while race-baiting and promoting anti-Limbaugh/McCain/Palin/Bush/Republican/ rhetoric in advertisements aimed directly toward an illegal immigrant audience (since when can illegals legally vote in U.S. elections?) doesn't really make sense either.

So what is it that Democrats love about Barack Obama? Democrats love Obama because they have found an initiative to invest in their own warped versions of faith. Democrats may fear those wacky right-leaning Christian Republicans, but these Democrats, who have obviously been lost and wandering for years, have found a target of their own new faith. This is why Obama has miraculously perservered with the corny phrases of "change" and "hope" in a campaign that resembles the typical political and economic flair of Lyndon Johnson and Obama's idol Saul Alinsky. Barack may have his own vision of grandeur in creating a new utopian "Great Society" of disillusioned voters, but Obama voters only see a shining beacon of light to invest their faith. "Hope" is a common theme behind Democrat campaigns - Hillary liked the word "hope" also, but her "hope" generally centered around the hope that Bill wouldn't hire any new interns. The primary difference is that Obama's "Hope" initiative is universally regarded as gospel by his faithful flock of liberals - never mind that Obama's "Blueprint for Change" fails to adequately address a slumping economy, high fuel prices, maintaining liberty-minded business markets, etc. There can be little argument that Obama voters are not voting for Obama the politician - but actually voting for Obama the Great, and politics has little involvement with their votes. Obama may hold a great and enduring political philosophy (albeight very unlikely), yet Obama has yet to reveal the policies that are going to resonate as beneficial in real world scenarios - remember that Obama's political philosophy is hypothesized in a strictly crafted socialist utopia. The only source of true politics that the Obama campaign is willing to discuss is that of President Bush - the funniest argument of liberals is the famous "McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time blah, blah." Can anybody explain when Bush ever voted in the Senate? What state is Bush representing if he is allowed a Senate vote? Regardless, the Obama crowd cheered loudly when Charles Gibson asked the infamous question of Palin's adherence to the Bush Doctrine - a question that Democrats deemed to be very fair, yet what do you believe the Democrats would say if Obama was drilled in similar fashion and asked if he followed the Marx Doctrine? You already know the answer...