There's enough rightwing hatred for two

I recently read a memorable and typical comment about Obama by some rightwingnutjob/putz named Debbi Schlussel, who apparently is enlisted on a semi-regular basis by lazy news outlets to, you know, add some “fair and balanced” insight to whatever media story is being glossed over. She posted a column in December on her website wondering why in the Lord Christ’s name we would want Barack Hussein Obama “as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?” Well, exactly! The man is the Manchurian Candidate, or Islamabadian Candidate, if you will, and once in the Oval Office those hidden commands hardwired into his brain by his Mullah overlords will come to the fore, directing his every freedom-hating move. Before you know it we’ll all be forced into Muslim re-learning centers, where all memories of bagels, Christmas, Elvis, pork ribs, and bikini-watching weekends on Dewey Beach will be Ajaxed. The only good news is that Target will have sales on burqas and prayer mats every single day.

The fact that people like Debbie Schluss-bag have detailed laughable scenarios like that, out loud and in public without fear of being tackled and strait-jacketed, raises a point I find curious about the Obama campaign. Some in his corner have touted that he's the only one who can bring the country together, the one who will get the Dems and Repubs to hold hands, in a completely non-gay way of course, and work together to restore America’s greatness, unlike Hillary Clinton, whose very name sends the misogynist neocon legions into frothing convulsions. To them she's the Queen of the Harpies, and their knee-jerk hatred of her every breath will stifle any hope of cooperation, resulting in eternal gridlock and making any progress on this nation’s pressing problems impossible. Therefore, the vitriol (I like that word) the rightwing will spew if she takes the nomination should be avoided at all costs.

The Obama Bunch’s theory that unity is not only desirable but essential for real progress is right on the money. Seven chokingly awful years of Bushdom, not to mention the one left to go, has sent America reeling against the ropes. Bringing red and blue-state minded people together may very well be the most important first step to launching an effective restoration. But don’t tell me Obama has the inside track on any of this because of some special immunity to rightwing bile. It was a full year ago that Fox News “reported” the Madrassa rumor, and attributed it to Clinton's campaign. And several conservative commentators, including L’il Debbie cited above, continue to refer to him by his full name. Hussein? Isn’t that the same name as the man who so many Americans still moronically believe helped attack America on 9/11? It sure is.

Would an Obama candidacy provoke less political shit-flinging by the loyal opposition? Maybe. But don't fool yourself: the Democratic nominee in 2008, no matter who it is, will face a staggering amount of opposition, and much of it promises to be of the Swiftboat variety. GOP campaign operatives, schooled in the Tao of Rove, must be wetting themselves from laughter at the level of in-fighting between Clinton and Obama, because it’s pure amateur hour. Wait until they get their crack at the nominee. The lies and stupidity they're cooking up right now will not only be jaw-droppingly unfair but also highly effective with voters, especially the rank-and-file Republicans who cannot bring themselves to research the issues any deeper than what they hear on talk radio. And when it comes to pulling the lever on Election Day, they are the ones who will still opt for the status quo – perpetual war, waste, greed, bigotry, etc. – no matter how much they claim they want “change.” Change?? They fear change, for fuck’s sake. What they want most of all is the continued illusion promised by most GOP candidates that they can have all the services and security the American government can provide without actually having to pay for any of it. So what if that burden remains on them, to one degree or another depending on their tax bracket and the skill of their accountants? A vote for Mitt Romney lets them keep pretending otherwise.

Not every Republican feels that way, of course, and those who think more realistically about patriotism and responsibility, and realize that problems such as pollution, inflation, mortgage defaults, and crumbling stock portfolios are not caused by gay marriage or flag burning, are the very souls Democrats must court, along with independents, if they are to take the White House this fall. And I haven’t seen a poll that shows conclusively that Clinton is incapable of swaying those voters. Nor is there any evidence that a President Clinton II couldn’t reach those people effectively enough to enact real change. Personally, I have no preference between Clinton and Obama (yes, there are still others running for the nomination, but get real), and I’m very disturbed by the occasional nastiness, or pettiness, of their campaigns, because their race should be a win-win for the party (as well as for the progressive movement). Both deserve the nomination. Both promise to make excellent presidents, even without the bar being as low as it currently sits. However, for those who do have a preference and are actively supporting one over the other, I can only hope it’s based on genuine policy differences and not some idea that either one can win the most stubborn conservative hearts and minds, either pre- or post-election. Republicans on the fence and independents are the ones whose support will count when the long, arduous reconstruction begins. But the Schlussels among us are unlikely to ever be turned, because like the scorpion in Forest Whitaker's “Crying Game” parable, it’s in their nature to sting, even if it’s fatally against their best interests. Or ours.