My use of the word “fascist” is not meant to be insulting in describing the recent wave of attacks on Barack Obama. But unfortunately, the political traits of those who engage into this vile and disgusting rhetoric leads one to the conclusion that fascism is the closest terminology that can be used to describe their zealous ideology. Since injecting race into this debate would be too explicit and would receive much unneeded negative press, and it would be subjected to counter-attacks by demagogues the likes of Al Sharpton, and it would undermine their own cause, the fascists resort to a different form but of the same nature of attacks on Obama - pointing out his tenuous, if any, connection to Islam in an attempt to instill into people’s minds that he is not fit to be the president of the United Democratic States of America. And since attacking him on the issues is difficult in the face of current political climate and overwhelming majority of the population’s unwillingness to continue George Bush’s policies, the fascists’ only weapon left is incidentally also their biggest asset - extreme nationalism, tribal jingoism and right-wing ideology.

Consider William Kristol, a recent installment by the New York Times to their list of columnists. Although William Kristol is not exactly Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity - leaders of the tribal, redneck South - his column on Barack Obama is awfully close in rhetoric to what the likes of Limbaugh spew out daily. William Kristol, of course, is a Neo-Conservative icon who not only was one of Iraq War’s chief architects and one of its biggest cheerleaders, but to this day continues to staunchly support it. Having John McCain in the White House is Kristol’s wet dream, but unfortunately, like many others of his opinions, he chooses to have it the dishonest way. Instead of persuading the American people within the framework of a civil pubic discourse that Iraq War was correct on moral principles and in terms of geopolitical strategy, he prefers to attack Barack Obama on his lack of patriotism - as Kristol sees it.

In his New York Times column, Kristol engages into an attack mode on Obama. He first implicitly challenges his patriotism by virtue of not wearing a lapel flag pin and then charges his wife Michelle Obama with lack of patriotism because she implied that she wasn’t always proud of the United States of America. In a somewhat nuanced way, Kristol attributes her only current pride in the US to the fact that America is supporting Barack Obama. It couldn’t be that she is proud of America because for the first time in her life and in American history, a black man can for the first time realistically become a president of the US, could it??

A more egregious and tribal attack on Obama’s roots, however, came from Mike Evans, another right-wing nut who cannot wait to start another war with Iran. His primary point in the article is that Obama would be taken advantage of by the Iranians and that in the world of Islam he would be more hated than George Bush because he is an Islamic apostate. After going through the usual Neoconservative talking points and rhetoric of Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden taking over the world, Mike Evans concludes in his article that Obama would be a terrorists’ dream.

The inconvenient truth however, is that it was George W. Bush who has been the terrorists’ wet dream, as Al Queda and other terrorist organizations have seen their recruitments skyrocket as a result of Iraq War. Moreover, all across the polls it shows that Bin Laden’s approval ratings went up after years of meddling in Iraq and continuing bellicose rhetoric towards Middle Eastern countries. Should Barack Obama get elected, Iran will see its power in the Middle East diminish as Obama would likely assemble a functioning coalition of mostly European countries willing to stop Iran from producing nuclear capability. Furthermore Bin Laden’s recruitment rate would begin to slowly diminish. Now that would more closely resemble what Bush and his associates term the “War on Terror”.

One subliminal, but clear message emerges from this anti-Obama rhetoric: the country is ready to end the war in Iraq. For if that wasn’t true, surely Kristol and Evans wouldn’t be afraid of elevating their pro-war rhetoric and persuading the American public openly of continuing to support the Iraq War and perhaps start a new one with Iran. Instead they choose to do it in a fashion that conceals their true motives - ones that American people are rejecting by an overwhelming majority.

I believe, although with reserved optimism, that on Jan. 20th, we will have stopped a 43-white-male streak in the US history as we inaugurate President Barack Obama!