These are all good ideas, although Chait properly identifies them as "sub-themes" not as the structure of a campaign.  Obama is also going to need some things to make truthy claims about job opportunities for displaced workers.  His insistence on "fair" global trade is something he can continue to ride hard, despite the inevitable shrieking from the policy wonks.  His position that people should not be "forced" by mandate not to buy health insurance but should have affordable insurance available to them is also a winner, notwithstanding the shrieking of the policy wonks.  AND I would certainly give serious thought to a promise to get America off of foreign oil so that we are not "beholden to Arab sheiks and the communist Chinese" and "can meet the challenge of climate change with declining reliance on fossil fuels."

It goes without saying, or should, that while there may be a place for detail in some policy paper on some website, details should be used sparingly on the campaign trail.  Remember "compassionate conservatism" at all times, one of the most brilliant campaign slogans ever coined.

Yes.

Obama is in sort of a strange position wherein there are a plethora of issues in which he can draw a stark contrast very favorable to the Democrats.  There's a danger of getting lost in too much of a good thing, though, as some independents have an unfair image of Democrats as serial promisers of government funds.  I think Chait's list is as good as any I've seen for a short list of devastating contrasts Obama should focus on.  There's plenty of room for surrogates to take cheaper shots at the many other issues on which McCain is vulnerable; Obama should keep a tighter focus.

I think there are lots of independents who still have their opinion of John McCain frozen in 2000, and they are just as vulnerable to a reversal as I was and Chait seems to have been.

Spot on.

#1 and 3 sound like Tep wrote them.  :-)

Certainly #1, tnmats, and he's right.  Lots of indies would take another look at BHO if he was solid on class-based AA.

#4 cannot be more correct.  He should mention them in every speech until the MSM actually notices that these are "flip flops" far beyond the pale of whatever they reported on John Kerry.  

McCain was for Immigration Reform before he was against it.  McCain is dangerously anti-choice.  They should be promulgating his perfect anti-choice score more than his NARAL score.  

If Obama is unwilling to hit him on these real policy fronts, then it is essential for the 527s and--yes--Hillary Clinton to go for McCain's jugular.

I agree with class based affirmative action as a policy proposal, but it has to be presented very carefully. First of all, those in the black and Latino communities who support the idea of poor kids  getting a leg up over middle class minorities should be brought front and center at the time the policy is released to provide cover against recriminations from the Left.  Second, and more importantly, I think the sound bite needs to be presented as "Obama rejects race-based affirmative action" rather than "Obama endorses class-based affirmative action."   If it's the latter, half the population he is trying to convince will see "endorsement" juxtaposed with "affirmative action", and he won't reach them.

BTW, I first saw the "words" truthy and truthiness used here about two days ago, and now they are all over this site.  What's up with that?   The Queen's English not good enough for you?

Re #4: I agree completely.   For all of his honorable service to the country McCain seems to suffer a failure of principles far too often.  Some of his changeability is certainly driven by major Republican constituencies.  I think that it would not be at all out-of-bounds to remind the public that George W Bush too, suported strong action against global warming when he was campaigning for the presidency.  How can we be confident that McCain would not similarly change his position?  

Use the rifle not the shot gun.  Chait, as with so many on the left, just cannot contain their exuberance for the many good ideas they believe they have.  But what Obama needs is one good idea.  For a theme. The Republicans win on themes not issues.  What theme will work for Obama, that's the question. Chait's points are all over the place.  Affirmative action (yea, that sounds like a winner).  Bi-partisanship (politics aint beanbag).  Pakistan (yea, let's send more troops to Pakistan).  McCain flip-flops (now that's original).  I know this is only a blog.  But really, Chait.  

There should be shrieking from the policy wonks, roid, because free trade is productive. Vast numbers of people do not understand this nor do they comprehend competitive advantge, nearly two centuries after David Ricardo originated that concept. Much more attention needs to be payed to workers displaced by trade but even here, the numbers are often vastly overstated, even by those who have some economic knowledge. Two great books to read are Jagdish Bhagwati's book on the benefits of globaliztion (he is one of the world's leading experts on trade) and Robert Reich's book on hypercapitalism, in which Reich recognizes the immense productivity of h.c but also wishes to do something about the inequities that it produces. I am not necessarily addressing you here at all, roid, but merely those who are educable.

raylward

Couldn't agree more. This election is truly a future vs the past thing. If Obama can go into VA and NC and paint them a picture of a future that equates going blue with economic success [an accurate picture where their burgeoning tech industries are concerned] he's president. If this comes down to McCain's flip-flops he doesn't have a prayer.

One of the best ideas I've seen in a while: Re: Jonathan Chait on How Obama Should Run Against McCain: How should Barack Obama run? Here are some sub-themes I would suggest he emphasize: 1. Embrace class-based affirmative action. This one is a winner

"Two great books to read are Jagdish Bhagwati's book on the benefits of globaliztion (he is one of the world's leading experts on trade) and Robert Reich's book on hypercapitalism . . ."

LR is too modest to mention it himself, but you all should know that these are #34 and #109, respectively, of his last year's count of 146 books read and inwardly digested to the very final syllable.

Advice to Obama: Think Whole Foods. Then unthink it. Think Harvard, then think community college. Think salon...then think "Great Clips", a $9 haircut at the mall. Think wine in a box. It's not Beaver Creek, it's Cincinnati.

Ironyroad: Wrong again. I read the Bhagwati tome before last year and the Reich work after that year.

The whole point, liberal, is that you cannot run a successful campaign on policy that would satisfy the wonks, and if you let the wonks control your rhetoric, you are going to lose.  Let them shriek.

As well, we don't live in Ricardo's world any more.  It is not even clear that there is or can be any longer any enduring comparative advantage (that's comparative advantage, not "competitive advantage") in a globalizing world where technology is transferable even from first world to third world countries. Hence, it may be that the result of globalization is just to bid wages down to a global level.  This is a problem that economists have started to talk about and may account for a lot of the stagnation in US real wages.

Say, liberal, have you read Gerard Debreu's "Theory of Value?"  I think you'd enjoy it.  Put it on your list.

I support Senator Obama, but I  profoundly disagree with the position he took - in an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief he filed -along with six of his Senate colleagues - in the case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District,

I taught Law and Society at Franklin High School in Seattle for more than thirty years and am intimately acquainted with both the law and facts of this case. what Senator Obama signed on to was a policy that allowed white students to be rejected from the only Biotechnology Academy in the school district solely because they were white and the number of whites in the school exceeded the quota set by the District, and non-whites to be denied admission to the only Law and Society and competitive mock trial programs in the District solely because they were not white and the number of non-whites exceeded the quota allotted to non-whites at Franklin.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the District's policy in June, 2007 by a 5-4 vote, and would have likely done so by a greater majority had the "liberal" justices understood the fine points of the Seattle Plan, which was not adequately presented in either the briefs of the parties or the deluge of amicus briefs.

The sophistry in the brief submitted by Senator Obama and his colleagues is breathtaking in its sophistry, cleverly stating that "no students were denied admission to the PUBLIC (emphasis supplied) schools in Seattle.  That, as stated, is true:  no student was denied admission to ALL Seattle schools, but they were denied the opportunity to attend schools that housed the only program of their kind solely because of their race.

Senator Obama also asserts that because “in some schools subject to the Seattle plan, white students are admitted into schools over non-white students, at other schools, non-white students are admitted over white students…the voluntary integration plans do not unduly burden any individual or group.”  Don’t we possess rights as individuals, or may they only be invoked when our racial/ethnic group is suffering discrimination that is not being visited upon others?  Was Andy Meeks, denied admission to Ballard High School after having been admitted to its Biotechnology Academy, solely because he was white justifiably excluded because a Japanese American student was excluded from Franklin High School’s Law and Society and competitive mock trial programs solely because he was non-white?

The Obama brief also informs us that “Those students, however, do not have any constitutional right to attend the school of their choice; that is a decision entirely within the discretion of local school authorities."  Another accurate statement that is misleading:  the U.S. Supreme Court has never said that students may be denied unique educational opportunities solely because of their race- not in admission to elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, or universities.

Senator Obama, despite his having been an instructor in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, misstates both the facts and the law in his amicus brief.

He should repudiate his ill-considered endorsement of Seattle's denial of students' Fourteenth Amendment right to the equal protection of the law. Until he does, no one should take seriously his sudden conversion to class-based affirmative action.

ray - "what Obama needs is one good idea.  For a theme. "

Help the puppies, not the yuppies.

It's swing-state working families with school age children that will decide this election. Focus like the proverbial laser beam on their unique needs and economic insecurities. Every four years, the Repub carries this crucial demographic that accounts for maybe 30% of the electorate by about 2-to-1. This is insane. Our party should own this demographic.

We have got to put an end to our addiction to identity politics and start focusing on economically-vulnerable families, whatever their color or creed or ideological bent,  wherever they live.

I erred above when I wrote "competetive advantage" where I meant "comparative advantage". A Homeric nod, I suppose but almost an inconcievable one to me because I talk frequently about comparative advantage and almost never about competetive advantage, though that too is an interesting and useful concept. Thanks to roid for pointing out my error.