I've been a bit upset by some of the vituperative attacks on Obama coming from the right, because they tend to cloud intelligent discussion of the man's many serious shortcomings. Worst of all, to the extent that they become full-blown irrational Obamaphobia -- this email I received earlier today being a perfect example -- they invite a countercharge of racism.

While it is not racist to make the false claim that Obama is a covert Muslim agent or the (IMO) dubious claim that he does things like work with secret Kenyan "Muslim" relatives to establish Sharia law, I can understand why such attacks would encourage people who like to level false charges of racism. After all, if John Edwards were threatening to upset Hillary's lead in the same way, it's highly doubtful he would be subjected to these kinds of accusations, and the fact that Obama is black makes it all too easy to label all attacks on him as racist.

What I'm so far seeing in this election is a lot of irrational behavior by a lot of people (myself included). Earlier Glenn Reynolds linked a very cogent analysis by Dr. Sanity:

The left and the Democrats are now equally astounded to discover that the Clintons are the Clintons! And that they would use the usual Clinton tactics against them!

Just as Hillary had a neurotic and "forgetful" moment regarding the antics of her husband; what we are witnessing is a supremely neurotic moment on the part of the left, who willy-nilly have jumped the Clinton ship and climbed aboard the Obama "vessel of hope". They are astounded that the antics of the Clintons (which for years they have rationalized and excused) are being used against them. Their idealization the Clintons had worn thin and, just in the nick of time, along comes a younger, prettier face that can help them shore up those tired, old "progressive" ideas, and delude them into believing they actually are supporting something fresh and innovative.

I hate to tell them, but Obama is just another socialist hack. For sure, he's fresh and young and articulate. But his ideas are no fresher than Hillary's and quite a bit more rigid and uncompromising. Hillary and Bill never believed in anything but themselves. Obama comes across as selfless as Mother Theresa, promising to lead us to his utopian wonderland.

But in the interests of my modest proposal, let me go further and admit that I am an anti-Hillary hack! Yes, I am an ABC (Anyone But Clinton) man all the way. I don't want to get into the details of why I don't want them back in the White House, as it would involve several lengthy essays, but suffice it to say that regardless of what I think about anyone's politics, if that person has a viable shot at stopping the Clintons, then that person represents hope. Thus, Obama becomes the Great Black Hope, while Edwards (were he in a similar position) would be the Great White Hope.

Looking at the backlash angle from a sexist standpoint, either Obama or Edwards could be called the Great Male Hope.

The San Francisco Chronicle is very sensitive to issues involving sexism, and one recent political analysis there concluded that Hillary's abrupt last minute turnaround was in fact a backlash by women voters against male sexism:

Garry South, a California Democratic political consultant, said that women - who proved crucial to Clinton's big win in New Hampshire - might simply have said "enough is enough" as they watched a parade of cable TV pundits, mostly male, all but pronounce Clinton's White House bid over in the final 48 hours of the campaign.

After the New York senator delivered a rare, emotional statement at a weekend campaign event, her voice nearly breaking, commentators began virtually nonstop analysis, suggesting that Clinton either was in the throes of a near-nervous breakdown or was making a shrewd bid for sympathy, he said.

"I think this is not totally a sisterhood kind of campaign, but women - whether they vill vote for her or not - know (her campaign) is a very historic thing," South said. "And to have her treated in that kind of dismissive way by a bunch of white male buffoon talking heads had women ticked off. My gut feeling is ... they stormed to the polls. Something happened here."

After barely losing the women's vote in Iowa last week, Clinton reclaimed it big-time in New Hampshire, 46 to 34 percent over Obama. Women make up more than half those who vote for Democrats across the country.

The point here is that backlash has become an important standard operating principle of American politics. Hillary played the female version like the virtuoso that she is.

So, in this context, I feel obligated to engage in some darkly counterintuitive backlash strategizing. I'm wondering if the best way to counter Hillary would be massive, paranoid Obama-bashing. Manufacture as much Obamaphobia as possible in order to create sympathy for him and guarantee cries of racism by leftie bloggers.

Simultaneously, Hillary should be constantly portrayed as the best of the Democratic alternatives. That this argument might even be true makes it all the more persuasive. There is nothing wrong with using the truth as an argument --even if the goal is duplicitous or demagogic.

With any luck, right wing attacks on Obama coupled with grudging praise for Hillary will both help Obama and hurt Hillary.

So why don't I just shut up and put my money where my mouth is, then? Why am I not bashing Obama and praising Hillary?

Because this is just theory, that's why. Personally, I have a problem with floating dubious information even for a good cause.

(The caveat is that I freely admit that such squeamishness is a good way to lose in politics.)

MORE: No doubt striking back at the Clinton machine for his defeat, John Kerry is endorsing Obama!

I'm sure there are plenty of principles involved there.

Political principles, that is....

MORE: Speaking of Obama's shortcomings, Glenn Reynolds links a report on the Rezko affair, as well as this criticism of Obama by Andrew Cuomo, which, according to the prevailing double standard, would have been racist had come from a Republican.

As Glenn notes regarding the Kerry endorsement, "those Clintons are subtle . . . ."

Not to disagree with Glenn, but I see the sinister hand of Karl Rove at work here.

(Hey, Rove still hasn't paid me, so this is my payback.)

MORE: Here's Dick Morris:

...the theme of Hillary's attack will be that Obama cannot win, that he's not "electable."

By that, she will mean, but never say, that a black man cannot be elected president in middle America. As surely as Bill used the race card by attacking rap singer Sister Souljah in 1992, Hillary will use race to win in 2008.