The recent turn of events (Hillary's concession; Obama's presumptive nomination) have, as predicted, caused fear among the right-wing (politicians, pundits, and media all) to skyrocket.
I invite and encourage all readers to examine the subtle and blatant ways in which the right-wing engages in a level of self-contradictory, petty personal assaults that it would stagger a mind that hasn't become used to witnessing it.
Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, they will of course focus their self-contradictory rages on him. It's worth examining how the initial attacks have begun, as they will clue us in on how the hysterical right will proceed as the election season progresses. As a bonus, we will see yet another manifestation of their tribal mentality.
Most of us are familiar with the standard operating procedure of the right-wing attack machine: pick something trivial and distracting, but with a high potential for divisiveness, and attack a rival with it; if/when that attack is debunked, shift to a completely different (and often contradictory) attack; repeat.
In going after Obama the right-wingers are using two of their favorite attack modes: concern trolling and commiebating.
Concern Trolling
The concern trolling is so obvious and trite by now that I wonder why they even bother, other than out of a sense that it ameliorates their own pain when they consider just how dismal their prospects are this election year. In Obama's case, the "concern" is (as always) that the Democratic Party is not putting its best foot forward. "Obama isn't vetted," they parrot, stealing a line from Hillary's hard-fought primary campaign, "so who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes with this guy?" On the other hand, Obama must be pretty well-vetted, because (according to the right-wingers), he's so steeped in well-known corruption (Rezko), anti-American/black-racist ideology (Wright), and criminal terrorist activity (Weathermen) that it's just amazing the Democrats could even consider letting him anywhere near the ticket!
Apparently the short-circuit that exists in most rational brains to head-off this kind of clear, unambiguously self-contradictory BS is non-existent or dormant in right-wingers. They recognize it somehow, though, because invariably when presented with the fact that this "concern" is paradoxical, they slide to a different argument: "The fact that Obama is associated with such corrupt/racist/anti-American individuals as Wright et al. just leads one to wonder 'What else is there?'" Yes, they truly have mastered the art of equivocation and double-think.
As always, "the media" play a big role in these hysterical righties' fantasies. According to them, "the media" have anointed Obama, are in his pocket, love him, want him to be on top (in more ways than one), etc. That's why they haven't vetted him, you see, and so that's why Obama isn't vetted. On the other hand, without the media dutifully reflecting, echo-chamber style, garbage like the issue with Wright, we wouldn't know as much "dirt" about Obama as we do. So which is it? Is Obama vetted, or isn't he? Don't ask anybody in the right-wing media; they can't (or won't) give a straight answer.
Tribalism
Of course, excoriating "the media" allows them to play another favorite game of theirs: "tribalism." One caller to a local talk radio station in my city declared that he had several ex-military friends who were all over Obama, and he was lamenting this fact. Why? Why, because "the media" have done such a good job at propping Obama up and pushing him forward that "even patriotic, country-loving ex-military men love him" (with the clear implication that they shouldn't, and it's a sad occasion). So it appears that Obama's nomination actually has another, more subtle side-effect: it's a catalyst to cause the right-wingers to start eating their own, as it were. Clearly good, patriotic, right-thinking men and women should hate Obama. Why is anybody's guess--he's not vetted after all, except where he is, and even then it's not good enough, unless it is (for the audience in question).
Commiebating
The next most frequent line of attack against Obama is the laughably inconsistent "he's the most liberal EVER!" smear. Obama himself, along with a plethora of other political junkies and experts, has noted that the "most liberal" smear is used by almost every Republican against their opponent in almost every contest in the country around election time. The trick is to use shifting metrics from different groups. The various right-wing groups use different standards for what they consider "liberal," and so their compiled statistics for the votes of public servants invariably will yield up different results in answer to the question, "Who is the most liberal?" That's a boon, in their mind, because then they don't have to worry about thinking (especially about whether their metrics are reasonable); they just have to decide who they want to be "the most liberal" and find any right-wing group "study" that "proves" it.
Some right-wingers, such as Neal Boortz (yes, yes; "he's a libertarian, wants to legalize drugs, prostitution, etc."--so what?; it's a matter of priorities, and if his priorities are "fair tax" and "defend this country, no matter what" over issues of civil liberties consistently, then the "libertarian" label he gives himself is a mere joke), like to pretend that Obama has some deep and long-held connection to Marxists from college. That's familiar; they do that with every Democrat who is labeled "most liberal" (and, conveniently, they all are).
The real issue here is the self-contradictory notion that more than one Democrat can be "the most liberal." Apparently this leap of logic doesn't register with them.
Conclusion
The fact that the right-wingers are starting right out of the gate with such patent nonsense bodes well for Obama for this election, and for other Democrats. They haven't got anything of substance to attack Obama with. They recognize that their political ideology is in the tank, popularity-wise, and so they resort to the above attacks--usually reserved for second-line distractions--as a first line of attack. So if they're tossing this stuff out now, what are they left with for a couple of months down the road, during the heat of the election season? The answer is: nothing. McCain can't beat Obama on matters of policy or ethics, and the right-wing's best smear-jobs are being laid out for bare right now. They have nothing now, and they'll have nothing a month, two months, or three months from now. And then, after November, they'll have little or no political power, either. Finally.