Obama 2008 = McGovern 1972

Man, I hope that Barak Obama is the Democratic nominee for President. Not because I like him – in fact, I hate him on a personal level. Rarely has history delivered up at such a critical moment such an inconsequential figure with such hopes invested in him. Every time I see his face – pale and strangely off-putting like that of a transsexual – my blood boils. But, still, I pray that God is kind enough to deliver us such an opponent: as annoying as the man is, tearing apart the Coke-snorting, criminal-coddling, terrorist-appeasing, possibly-Mohammadean Democratic nominee is going to be a lot of fun.

The pundits are right when they say that this election should be an easy win for the Democrats. After all – there’s been a decade of unremitting political-cultural attacks against the President and the Republican Party, the global situation remains unsettled, and the economy is slowing. If the Democrats had any sense about them at all they would duplicate the formula followed the two times they’ve elected a President in the last forty years: they would nominate a Southern Governor with a moderate reputation. If Brad Henry, Mike Easley, or Phil Bredesen were set to be their nominee the Democrats would be looking at something like a five to ten point win right about now.

The human race is fortunate, then, that the Democratic base is – in brief – composed largely of stupid and delusional people. In my experience, devoted Democrats fall into one of two camps:

1) They are unkempt and confused, like the woman who voted for Lyndon Johnson because she thought that Barry Goldwater wanted to take away her TV.

Or;

2) They’re long-term sufferers from what I call “The American President” syndrome. I’m talking about the Aaron Sorkin movie here. In it, the good-hearted liberal President is assailed by Evil Republicans™ who, for some bizarre reason, are violently opposed to the widowed President dating a demure lobbyist played by Annette Benning. At the end, the President decides to reject compromise and moderation and instead gives a speech where he proclaims that the symbol of America should be equally the flag and someone burning the flag and then subsequently promises to “go door to door and get all of the guns.” Thereafter, the President delivers the State of the Union to rapturous applause and, presumably, goes on to be overwhelmingly re-elected by an American electorate full of deeply closeted ACLU members.

Of course, in reality, any President who went off his rocker like that would be lucky to live out the rest of their term, let alone re-elected. The delusion is excusable in the writer, who reportedly wrote the script, “holed up in the Four Seasons Hotel with the curtains drawn … while smoking endless amounts of crack.” However, it is less understandable in (mostly) sober individuals.

For all of the rhetoric about change – for all of the excitement and auto-erotic heavy breathing coming from the media – the truth is that Barak Hussein Obama is on the far left and, when that fact is explained to the American people, he will lose the forthcoming election: badly. The only caveat that I’ll make in that statement is that it’s null and void if the Republicans as a whole are so stupid as to respond to the present crisis by nominating for President the former Governor of a nowhere state whose primary qualification for office is that he seems like he’d make a good substitute host of the “700 Club.”

This is 1972 all over again. The Democratic base has, as it did all of those years ago, become progressively unhinged from reality and is determined to have its way come what may. In 1972 they wanted McGovern – acid, amnesty, abortion, and all. They’d been radicalized by the anti-Vietnam movement, by the 1968 convention, and all of that and they were determined to take charge and, in so doing, they led their party off an electoral cliff that it has really never fully recovered from.

Frankly, Obama is a Republican’s dream. All of us were already tried of Hillary Clinton. The GOP has already torn that woman down and apart – an election with her as the nominee would have been spent refighting old battles – fighting for yard after yard of shattered ground like the poor bloody infantry in the Great War. With Obama, on the other hand, we get a whole new – and hitherto unexplored – life to exploit.

In particular, I’m quite eager to see how the Moslem issue works out. Yes, I know that the Senator’s official position is that he’s a “Christian” and he even belongs to some far-left black “Church” which, among other things, holds denouncing “middleclassness” as one of its core beliefs – but, really, how much is the word of a Democrat worth?

Both Obama’s father and his step-father were Moslems. That’s a fact. He also went to Islamic schools as a child. Really, at the moment, we know very little about what he believed and professed in the years between then and when he was first getting into public life in the mid-1990’s. Is it really all that implausible that a young black man - especially one with as intense an interest in his family background as Obama professes – wouldn’t have flirted with the faith of his fathers at some point during his young adult years?

Indeed, we know – thanks to Hillary Clinton’s discovery of a youthful ‘essay’ – that Obama had political ambitions from a very early age. Islam has a specific doctrine, known as “al-Taqiyya”, which permits the followers of Allah to conceal their true faith when among unbelievers. Now, let’s be very clear – I’m not saying that Obama is a concealed Moslem, a Manchurian candidate, waiting to seize the office of the Presidency in the service of sinister interests. But, on the other hand, it’s impossible to rule it out. These things are, after all, unfalsifiable by their very nature.

Is Barak Hussein Obama secretly a Moslem, pretending otherwise under the cover of a goofy Black Nationalist church? I can’t prove it and I, personally, don’t believe it – but neither I nor anyone who isn’t a telepath can disprove it either. Unfalsifiable.

Yes, I’m enjoying this.

In any case, we don’t need anything so dark in order to work towards destroying Obama. While, admittedly, I’d take a “What Should I Do, Imam?” letter signed by Obama over a weekend in bed with Jenna Fischer, we can make do with substantially less. Indeed, the facts that Obama fully admits to – his parentage and religious education – are, within the broader context of his views, a serious issue.

Obviously, no one can choose their parents. We can’t fault Obama for that. Someone could be born a red diaper baby and later become a staunch and reliable anti-communist. But Obama shows no sign of such a transformation. If we take him at face value – that he was born and raised by a vacuous mother with a thing for Moslem men, that he was seemingly raised as a Moslem to some degree, and later became irreligious before eventually joining some frivolous fringe “church” there still remains the very serious issue that his background and upbringing – which he has never denounced or discarded – will make him excessively sympathetic towards the West’s enemies. Such notions might not sit well with pious multicultural sensibilities but are nonetheless real. It takes a strong man to overcome early bonds of affection and accept that it might be necessary, in the interests of our civilization, to kill people one was raised with – maybe even to kill one’s own relatives, if that is what is required. Does the candidate of Oprah seem likely to be the one to dispense with that sort of sentimentality?

Forget the notion – bandied about by Shelby Steele – that part of Obama’s draw comes from the fact that he’s a “nonthreatening black man.” The deeper truth is that a large part of Obama’s appeal comes from the fact that he’s a nonthreatening man, period. For all of the jokes about John Edwards as the “metrosexual candidate” (a label his 2008 campaign persona seems designed to shake) no one deserves the label more than the effete and gaunt Obama. There’s a reason why Obama draws the woman’s vote more than Hillary Clinton: he’s a limp-wristed weakling whose appearance and attitudes are perfectly in keeping with the cultural mores of the day. His appeal – particularly to the young and to single women – can be traced to his girlishly sensitive countenance and character.

No, Obama doesn’t cry in public or claim that he can “feel our pain” like Bill Clinton. Obama’s appeal in this regard is more subtle (and quite possibly genuine). For his occasional calculated statement about foreign policy, his mush-brained homilies about the “audacity of hope” are perfectly positioned to win over the lavender and lace set.

This, of course, is only the beginning. My confidence that we’ll beat Obama isn’t nearly enough for me to quit – especially not when I transparently hate the man with such passion. My hope is that no one else will quit either and that we can spend a whole year administering a truly epic beat-down to the Democrat.