I agree with you, Rachel. I think it's sad to see people who actually believe that Obama's presidency will trigger the demise of the free world. Letting such "paranoias," as you call them, dominate our perspective is a dangerous game. But there's a difference between paranoia and skepticism, and one has to wonder why Obama inspires so much of both.
Each candidate has weak points that are exploited by the media and the opposition. Obama isn't the only one on the rostrum taking heavy flak, but his past and present connections make him (or at least they should) laughably damnable. Yet somehow the mainstream press continue to declare him the conquering hero of America while continually slamming Clinton and McCain for various petty and ignoble reasons. Their supporters never hasten to their defense as fiercely as Obama's disciples. Why is this? Every candidate is deserving of criticism, and each takes responsibility for their own defense. Hillary must stand up against a torrent of misogynistic generalizations and sordid Lewinsky reminiscences, while McCain has to prove he won't just keel over while being sworn in. These are, according to the media, legitimate prejudices. So why draw the line at Obama? Obviously he has his share of explaining to do, just like everyone else. But he has the media on his side, glorifying his candidacy at every turn and occasionally divulging some unseemly details that are just too glaring to ignore.
Let's keep in mind that a skeptical imagination is a good thing; it helps us to look beyond the polished electables behind the podium. And, by and large, the exaggerated characters that arise normally reside on SNL rather than in heartfelt American convictions. So take a breather, sentinels. If Obama's so great, he can stand up for himself, right? Not that he needs any more praise...
