Was his response to Joe the Plumber a slip-up or was it our first real look into what this man truly believes?  Look, I won’t re-summarize here what this 2001 Obama interview says.  Ed Morrisey of Hot Air has already performed that task much better than I ever could.  But, I will add to his commentary with an observation of my own:

Obama said, “…that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or a State government must do on your behalf…”

Excuse me?  One of the things that is so wonderful about our Constitution and the vision of our founders is that they wanted to put down on paper a government that would be LIMITED in how far it could reach.  Furthermore, I would not agree with mister Obama in that the Constitution is strictly a collection of prohibitory rules.  It provides a stict and limited list of powers and duties of the Federal government, then explicitly states, “if it ain’t covered here, it’s reserved for the States or the people themselves.”  It was intentional.  It was genius.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/27/smells-like-socialist-spirit/

Like any good socialist, mister Obama has time and again shown that he believes that it is government’s duty (and within government’s power) to provide for as many of its citizens needs as possible – and to achieve that goal, government’s power must be absolute in order for it to make those determinations for ”the collective good” of the people.  This is not conjecture or spin on the part of conservatives who want to paint an ugly picture of him.  The words come directly from his mouth.  Furthermore, in this 2001 interview, he even goes beyond arguing the intent of our founders or any interpretation of what the Constitution provides.  He openly advocated scrapping the Constitution because it does not adequately address the things that government is required, or empowered, to do on your behalf.  I’m no political science scholar, but I doubt any “mainstream” candidate, much less one who seems to be only a week away from winning the Presidency, has ever dared uttered such thoughts openly.  But this man has - and either the people aren’t hearing it, they’re too stupid to understand what it all means, or (gulp) the people agree that’s the path on which they wish to proceed.

So what I see right now is beyond “progressive” or even “radical”.  This man is fully steeped in absolutely destroying the ideals on which this nation is established, if given carte blanche or if enabled through some good blocks from the willing offensive lines of a supermajority Congress and press corps.  My only hope is that the Congressional slaughter is not as bad as some project and that enough of our citizenry will have buyer’s remorse by the time the 2010 midterms get here.  Putting some shackles on Obama’s socialist enthusiasm may be our only way of retaining an America that somewhat resembles the great nation is once was.  Wait…  “Shackles” probably wasn’t the best word to use.  Surely, that would be construed as racist.