Paglia on Birther movement: Predictable but how meaningful?

I was a big fan of Camile Paglia in the 1990s.  I found it refreshing that,  although she is a liberal,  she often sided with conservative and right wing views on certain issues ( for example,  date rape hype,  feminist hype of all kinds,  and political correctness).   She is lesbian,  but took a daring and unusual stance on the P-FLAG movement on college campuses,  and her critique of NARTH and gay marriage was original and thought provoking.   I myself am kin to her is certain aspects:  liberal on many issues,  but radically conservative on some of the new-fangled liberal causes. 

 Now she is siding with the birther movement,  which she finds legitimate.  Factually,  I admit her points are extremely well-taken by me.  I have always believed,  though, that even on the small chance that there is a legitimate question as to Obama's place of birth   -  and I am not sure that there is a legitimate question at all  -  the Constitution could be amended to accommodate him.    This is my intuitive sense of how things would pan out.   I am also unabashedly pro-Obama;  perhaps even irrationally so.  I cannot be sure just why it is that I have the uncanny sense that he is "ordained".  I think it is far less a mystical sense than an historical and political one:  He fulfils nearly all of the predictions of Howe and Strauss for a "fourth turning President".    And the will of the people in a free election in which the majority chose him,  would super-cede the constitution,  from the Democrat liberal stance ( not from that of the Birthers,  I  admit).   In any case: