Barack Obama was elected in 2008 on his vague promise of “hope and change.” It was a shrewd strategy. He played into Americans’ perpetual dissatisfaction with their elected officials. Who doesn’t want change in the political system, and what better thing to hope for?

Moreover, by running mostly on a slogan, he became an empty vessel for people to fill with their individual hankerings. If you hoped that college would be changed to make it tuition free, then Obama’s your man because, after all, he did promise hope and change. If you hoped your dad would change his criminal ways, then Obama’s your man because, after all, he did promise hope and change. If you hoped the Burger King down the street would change to a Chipotle, then Obama’s your man because, after all, he did promise hope and change.

You get the idea.

When Obama was elected, he promptly declared it was the start of a “fundamental transformation” in America. Once again, he kept everyone happy (well, not me) because he wasn’t specific. We had to wait and see.

It all worked for Obama, for long enough. He did fundamentally change America. For the worse, in my opinion. But he did change it.

You might wonder how Obama got away with a campaign so short on particulars. Why didn’t the press ask him for some?

Two reasons. First, the press wanted a Black man to be elected President and would settle for a half-Black one who “identified” as all Black. Indeed, they liked it better that way because this crowd is scared of fully Black men who have left the Democrat plantation. (See, Thomas, Clarence and Sowell, Thomas)

I voted against Obama for reasons having nothing to do with his race. It was because he looked far too liberal to me. His race was actually a positive for me. On election eve in 2008, I felt a bit of pride that America had elected a Black man to be President. What an opportunity for healing, I naively dreamed.

Second, the press even back in 2008 was overwhelmingly liberal, and, despite Obama’s vague campaign, they could see that he was too. People who hang with the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers are plenty liberal if not downright radical.

These two factors set the stage for the press’s most obvious and shameless bias since the days of Franklin Roosevelt – when we had a world war to win. Because in the minds of the press, we had another world war to win.

Kamala Harris is trotting out Version 2.0 of Hope and Change. Of course she can’t call it that, since Obama owns that empty phrase and, besides, promising “change” sounds funny from someone whose distance away from the presidency the last four years was just a heartbeat, and a very feeble one at that.  

And even she is smart enough not to make a dramatic multicolored poster of herself like the one Obama traded on, pictured above. That’s sui generis. (Art, not so much.)

So . . . she ginned up something similar to “Hope and Change.” It’s “Joy.” We’re told her campaign is full of “joy.” Who dislikes joy?

“Donald Trump, that’s who!” is their punch line.

Just so that we don’t confuse joy with governing, maybe we should have a British-style monarchy where the monarch gets tasked with “joy” while the Prime Minister gets tasked with governing.

The reason for Kamala’s joy is that she looks forward to a future “unburdened by the past.” In other words, don’t judge her by her words and actions in the past, including the past four years. Instead, judge her by the words and actions you imagine her speaking and doing in the future. Anyone who dredges up her words and deeds of the past is not unburdened by the past and is a real killjoy.

Like Obama 16 years ago, she won’t spoil what you imagine her saying and doing in the future with any contradictory words today. Since she became the putative Democratic nominee a month ago, she has not held a single press conference and has not sat for a single interview.

It’s working. As in 2008, the press is mostly in the bag. They’ve half-heartedly criticized her for her metaphorical basement campaign, but you get the sense that what they’re craving are not answers to hard questions, but clicks. They want a press conference not to inform the public – they’ll make sure to make it a Press Conference Lite – but to motivate people to tune in to them and their lame questions.

That’s because, as in 2008, but even more so 16 years later, they want another Black president – this time a Black woman. And once again they’ll settle for one that’s only half-Black. In fact, they prefer it that way, since, as mentioned, fully Black people scare this crowd.

And, as in 2008, they are confident that Kamala is very liberal. Ridiculously so, to the point that even they cannot stop themselves from noting the absurdity of some of her proposals like federal price controls on groceries. (Hot dogs will cost only $0.14, but you have to stand in line two hours to get them – and don’t you dare complain, comrade.)

Soviet-style price controls on groceries aside, the press know that Kamala is in the bag for the left – meaning them – just as they are in the bag for her.

Will it work again? Probably. And then we’ll have Version 2.0 of “Fundamental Transformation.”

The left likes all this transforming, of course. But I sense that it leaves them unsatisfied. They want the transforming, but they’re disappointed that it seems to be happening in a peaceful sort of way, mostly. What fun is a revolution if no heads roll?

But the left typically overplays its hand. They don’t resort to conflict as a means of achieving change; they seek change as a way of provoking conflict. There’s still time for Version 2.0 to crash.