Something about Barack Obama’s rise to the top of the Democratic Party heap isn’t passing the smell test. How is it that a 45-year-old with just two years of federal legislative experience has been able to sweep through the primary process and defeat the top name in the party?

A recent article by ABC outlines Obama’s campaign, and in reading it, the Spy’s BS radar went into acquisition mode.

Obama had announced his intention to form a presidential exploratory committee a few days before Clinton’s announcement on her Web site, hillaryclinton.com.

By this point, Clinton had been setting up her organization - an extensive and powerful one - for years.

Just weeks later, standing outside Illinois’ historic Old State Capitol building where Abraham Lincoln gave a famous speech condemning slavery and calling for the United States to unite, Obama, then a 45-year-old with just two years of federal legislative experience under his belt, officially announced his longshot bid.

“I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this, a certain audacity,” Obama said to the crowd of 16,000 braving a freezing February afternoon. “I know that I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

“Presumptuousness?” How about downright lunacy?

Clinton dominated a crowded field of Democratic candidates including Obama, Edwards, as well as Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and fomer Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, for much of the summer and early fall of 2007.

Is this stacked or what? Here, Hillary Clinton had a season schedule of weak opponents that pretty much guaranteed her the conference championship and a free ride to the national title.

Further, the Wall Street Journal article says:

The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren’t the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.

So, did the Democratic Party set up Barack Obama to flush the Clinton’s from the system?  The Spy has discussed this several times: “Suicide By Clinton,”  “Hillary’s Waterloo,” “Mine, Mine, Mine” and “Now What?”

How else can a first-term U.S. Senator whose only previous national exposure was a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention suddenly (and, in politics, 4 years is “suddenly”) become the nominee for President?

The Party desperately needed to get rid of the Clintons.  “Change” was probably spoken more in DNC circles than any other word in the last four years.  “Change” is necessary branding for the party because that’s the key motivation for the electorate.  The issues are devisive - even the war in Iraq.  “Change” as an issue - well, that’s just good marketing.  However, NONE of the other announced candidates could offer change.  And Hillary Clinton is arguably the least of the change agents.

So, the Democrats had to look beyond the usual slate of hacks and has-beens, particularly to counter the Clintons.  They needed young, they needed eloquent, they needed attractive.  Obama has all that.  He also has the added “hook” of his ethnicity to counter Hillary’s gender.  It’s a hook that further allows him (or his campaign or the party) to squeal “RACISM!” at any and every critique.  A stretch?  Remember Bill “First Black President” Clinton and the South Carolina primary?

To legitimize the campaign, the Dems put up a really sorry slate of “candidates:”  Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson were all (as was Hillary) born in the ’40’s.  Mike Gravel was born in 1930 and Tom Vilsack in 1950.  None of those guys were viable.  There was also John Edwards, still 8 years Obama’s senior, but damaged goods after being John Kerry’s running mate.   Plus, none of these others had a legitimate slate of issues to separate them from the pack. 

Thus, the field of noise was created to pick away at Hillary during “debates” and other shared venues.  This program also gave Obama time and experience to work up his own agenda for the inevitable showdown between him and Clinton.

And now, the party has what it wanted - a Clinton-less ticket and a candidate that, should he win, will be manipulable and little more than, well, a politically correct Manchurian Candidate.

And who gains?  The old party leaders that haven’t been in control of the country since … when?  The Clinton’s screwed it up for them in the ’90’s and, although they’ve had control of Congress for a few years now, they still can’t break through the Republican and/or Conservative ilk of more than half of the electorate.

With an ambiguous chant/rant of “Change,” the party can likely dupe the American public that by voting for Barack Obama, things will be better because they will have changed.  What will really happen is the reconstitution of Kennedy Democrats that will threaten the Reagan Revolution and begin an ugly run-up to socialism.

So, to answer the question, “Is Obama a setup?” it’s hard to believe otherwise.