He *did* call him a liar.  In his "town hall" where he mocked McCain's mockery, he said, "First of all, they're lying about my energy plan...."

I agree that to the extent he's not saying so more frequently or visibly, he should do so.

And yet again, Halperin repeats McCain's line unchallenged. Why don't he and Ron Fournier get it over with and just work for McCain's campaign?

"Don't the last eight years show us what happens when you campaign in the Rove style and then try to govern? It seems to me that Obama can do something that's both politically valuable and extremely salient to the choice voters face."

--This is a really smart take on the problem. Obama, indeed, should equate McCain's distortions with Rove's election by division strategy and its demonstrable shortcomings regarding governing. Get that message out. Cheers, Mr. Chait.

In modern American politics, you cannot say that your opponent "lies."  It is an unacceptable verb.  You can say "Republicans lie," or you can say "McCain distorts" or "McCain misrepresents," but you cannot say "McCain lies."  Why this is so I do not know, but watch the contortions any politician goes through when he or she is asked, "So are you saying your opponent is a liar?"  There is something about the L word that makes it only usable in the generic, and never in the particular.

I agree, but I think the Obama campaign is saving up it's Ammo for after the conventions and the debates.  A charge such as "They are liars" cannot be over-used.  The point has to be made dramatically and then re-enforced ala "There he goes again."  To make the point now would diminish it's effectiveness, but of course the Media and bloggers like us should make the point whenever it is warranted so that when the Obama counter-attack does come it doesn't seem like it's coming out of left field.

In fact, the last time a presidential candidate came close to directly saying his opponent was a liar was when Michael Dukakis compared Bush Sr. with Joe Isuzu, and look how well that worked . . .

1. He's already doing that, as Jhildner points out.

2. He can't and should not call McCain a liar; should let surrogates do that.

3. "McCain is only hanging in close in the polls because he's seen as a straight-talking maverick." We don't really know why McCain is hanging in close; could be because he's white and Obama is black.

4. "Doesn't this say something important about McCain's character?" Um, nothing that we have not known for a long time.  Bush brutally raped McCain in 2000 and since then, McCain has been his bitch.  What said "something important" about his character was the primary admission, along with a maniacal laugh, that "I helped Bush become President in 2000 and then 2004."  He clinched that with his "Obama would rather lose a war and win an election".  He put whipped-cream and a cherry on top with this "American President Americans have been American American waiting American for American" ad.

Nothing new here.

Someone should call McCain a liar. A lot of people should. But not Obama. It is the most timeworn of politician lines: "Senator x is lying about my record!" Such an attack would get plenty of media coverage, but it would be he-said she-said coverage that would make Obama sound shrill and defensive.

That's why Obama's response was the right way to handle it. He fit the tire-gauge claim into his own narrative frame about McCain being the third term of the know-nothing Bush Administration. If there's a problem, it's that he doesn't have an Act 2. There are no surrogates and ads pushing the "proud of being ignorant" attack. What Chait is really getting at, in my opinion, is the lack of a coordinated campaign to define McCain. And yes, that's a problem.

Tim: you're right of course.  Someone observed that these days, calling someone racist appears to be far worse than actually being a racist.  I just think that the winning strategy is three-pronged: 1) tie McCain to Bush; 2) tie McCain to Bush; and 3) tie McCain to Bush.  The hug and the maniacal laughter would be the clinchers.

Ah, yes, I am reminded by tomhilliard of the other great "liar" moment in recent American politics:

Quick,

a) Who said "Stop lying about my record!"?  

b) To whom did he say it? and

c) What good did it do him?

Answers:  a) Bob Dole, b) Bush Sr., and c) none

Hey, wasn't their some air-head flappin' his gums a couple of weeks ago trying to make an argument that McCain was a bold-faced liar?

Obama should just take out a 30 second spot that is just that still shot of McCain hugging bush.  No commentary, no spin, just a picture.  sometimes they really do say a thousand words.

I agree that Obama can't just out McCain for the lying, two-faced, double-talking panderer that he is for many of the reasons mentioned above.

However, i also think that many of McCain's "constituency" are not ready to accept the chinks in McCain's "Straight Talk" armor. As was noted on another topic, the press corps and many MSM continue to accept anything McCain says as proven and true. McCain would not have to defend himself from the accusation, but simply disparage Obama for the accusation and the press corps and media outlets will do the rest.

HITTING BACK....Jon Chait is getting pissed:Thinking more about this McCain tire gauge lie, I'm wondering why Barack Obama doesn't just outright call McCain a liar. All politicians spin, some more agresssively than others, but McCain's claim that Obama

Obama needs to ratchet up the rhetoric and not call McCain a liar, but instead actually call McCain "an a**hole. "