With the GOP nomination all but sealed up and Obama ascendant on the Left, we're getting little tastes of the race ahead, should Obama capture the Democrats' top spot.  As they pointed out half-jokingly in their opening skit on SNL the other night, Obama has so far received very little scrutiny of the type he will be getting in the general election, for fear, I think, that criticism might aid Clinton's White House Bid.

Influential pundits on the left, like Frank Rich and Mo Dowd, have been so obsessed with undermining Clinton's bid, they have been wholly uncritical of Obama.  MSN and its online magazine Slate may as well be an arm of the Obama campaign.  During his recent sweep, when he pulled ahead of Clinton for the first time and they finally felt safe to venture a criticism of him, it was: "Can Obama become too hip for his own good?" (By the way, the answer was no.) Unfortunately, that's seriously as substantive as scrutiny of the Left's now presumptive candidate has been.

There are two obvious areas the Right will come after Obama, and, as William Kristol hints in The Times, Obama's use of highflown rhetoric and his habit of dismissing out of hand criticism that seems outrageous on the face of it will play into the GOP's game plan beautifully in the general election.

The race so far has been about personality, and it will continue to be.  But the old election-year quandary "who would you rather have a beer with?" which Democrats dismiss as ridiculous (while engaging in what amounts to the same parlor game themselves dressed up in the scientific-sounding euphemism "electability") actually resonates with many Americans, especially those — independents and swing voters — without the ideological moorings of stalwarts of either party.  The question favors the GOP, as the answer is unquestionably McCain.

I'll readily admit to having more personal sympathy for John McCain, myself. However repugnant his party and politics may be, I like the way he waves and does his thumbs-up — like his suit jacket is two sizes too small. His range of motion is refreshingly restricted. Despite all the complaints from The Base, he is the very embodiment of the party he will represent in the general election this year.

Still, if you asked me who I'd rather have a beer with — McCain or Obama — it'd be Big Mac, hands down. Anyone who, when slagging off his opponent for "trying to spend a million dollars" — peanuts, really — "on the Woodstock Concert Museum" could crack: "My friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event, but I was tied up at the time"— a reference to his five and a half year stay in the Hanoi Hilton — is someone I could have a burger and a beer with.  I don't like McCain's politics, but I do like McCain.  But then I like Hillary Clinton, too, so what do I know?

I definitely wouldn't want to drink around Obama.  People who talk about hope and change when they drink are tiresome, aren't they?  That shit might work when you're stoned, or strung out on coke, dude, but it does not go down well with Guinness.  As far as I'm concerned, Obama has no pub cred, at all. 

The  Presidential Beer Test is certainly not perfect, but it seems to be a pretty accurate predictor of electability in the general.  Obama is smart, articulate, and charismatic, but he's not a personable candidate — his starry-eyed supporters have made it virtually impossible for him to be, having branded him an inspirational one.  In insisting that he is inspirational, they've limited his appeal to those who either perceive him as inspirational already, or are in the market for the kind of inspiration Brand Obama is known to deliver. 

The fact that he has been touted as No Ordinary Man does not bode well for him.  Americans rather like their men ordinary.  And they like their men manly.  Maureen Dowd recently, and very rightly, pointed out that Obama has more feminine mystique than Hillary.

So let's look at the last two Democratic nominees.  Both had stronger arguments and were more articulate then their opponent, hands down.  But the GOP used their strength to expose a perceived weakness, not in their arguments, not in their approaches, but in their mien — not only were Gore, Kerry, and Edwards, in subtle and not so subtle ways, characterized as effete and effeminate — the last two were actually derisively labeled "girlie men" by Arnold Schwarzenegger — but their highfalutin language was proof that they belonged to a cultural elite that was fundamentally unpatriotic.

Kristol nails it:

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

By the Right's accounting, Obama's feminine wiles may work with his decadent base, but "ordinary Americans" will see right through them. 

We'll be hearing a lot more in the coming months about Obama's lapel button, too.  Months ago, he stopped wearing it, if you'll recall.  This caused a small stir, since it was no ordinary lapel button, but an American flag lapel button.  When a reporter following his campaign noted it, he explained:


What is striking about this, Kristol notes, foreshadowing the lapel-button swiftboating to come, is

that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

In Kristol's opinion, which is sure to be shared by a great many others, Michele Obama's recent comments play into this perception of the candidate and his wife as haughty, patronizing, and conceited, too. 

There is something fascinating in the role race may play in the idiom the Obamas sometimes employ.  Poetic flourishes like the "hole in our souls," are more common in sermons in African American churches than in presidential stump speeches.  And even though politicians routinely employ different rhetoric, even use a different accent to ingratiate themselves with a particular group they're courting, any appearance that the Obamas are speaking one way to the African American community and another to the rest of us will be exploited by the GOP to insinuate doubts in the minds of undecideds about their desire or ability to lead the whole nation, despite claims to the contrary.  "Reasonable doubt" will be the Right's catchphrase in this campaign.

The Right probably won't label the Obamas racists,  but if recent chatter in the punditsphere is any indication, labeling the pastor of their church one may work just as well.  Sean Hannity first suggested it last year, and while the sentiment has remained underground during the primaries, look for it to emerge in a big way in the general election.  And remember, the guilt-by-association approach doesn't have to work on everyone.  It only has to sway a few swingers.

Obama is far from inevitable at this point.  And Clinton is right that he's unprepared for what's to come.  The Right is revving up to exploit his cult of personality for their political gain.  Wouldn't it be a pity if his "Movement," which so many view as his ultimate strength, turned out to be his Achilles heel?