This is the sort of attack that you need a VP for.  

I realize that criticism of a candidate's strategy is a 24/7 job, but can't we give Obama until, like, Friday to come up with a masterful, all-encompassing criticism of McCain that would automatically end the race?  By my count, Obama only started with the sharper, more populist tone on Monday.  He can add the character attacks a couple days later, after the public and general news media have absorbed the thrust of his new approach.

Obama never gets a break, huh? At any rate, I think he needs to be cautious: if his VFW speech is any indication, he's going to continue going after McCain from the high ground. Hard to do that if you're also running ads about his loafers.

I'm not impressed by Karen's work; her citations (imnsho) don't fully support the argument she is making.

I agree that Obama would do well to bring it home to the voters exactly what McCain's economic policies will mean for them.

He should be hammering health care in a big way.  And that stuff about cutting taxes for the wealthy needs to be combined with the fact that Obama will cut taxes *more* than McCain for the vast majority of Americans.

I can't count myself among the people who wish Obama's campaign was sleazier.  I'm not opposed to John McCain because he's a bad guy.  I'm opposed to John McCain because he's wrong in a big way on many of the major issues currently facing our country.  To a lesser extent, it's related to ithe mpression that he tends to think with his gut too often, which gives me doubts about his ability to make good decisions about the issues that will face our country in the future.  I don't give a damn how rich he is or who he's friends with or how often he appears on TV or any of that crap.  There are a lot of *good* reasons not to vote for McCain; I want him to stick to those.

Yes, indeed, that is what a VP is for.  This is especially true since if Obama gets too heavy-handed or muscular in his attacks he will get ripped for being an  'angry black man'.  

This leads to a very interesting bit that I have been kicking around my brain for a bit - where in the HELL are Obama's surrogates?  Oh, yes, they slink onto the sets of a few chat shows, but other than that, you only hear from the Democrats when they are in the process of either damning Obama with faint praise (Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell) or actively playing to the John McCain is wonderful nonsense meme that is omnipresent in the media (Feingold, Strickland).  Where are the supporters offering any response whatsoever to all of the nonsensical attacks?  Heck, I would take a Democrat going absolutely off the reservation in his/her apoplexy about the sheer knavery of the McCain campaign.  Instead, you have a bunch of hand-wringing hacks and pikers whining about whether Obama will hit back hard enough or not.  

Bah!  

Attacks should be based on the issues rather than personal insults.  You can hammer policy differences, even to the point of sarcastically asserting that the wealthy are the only beneficiaries of McCain's economic policies, without crossing the line into personal insults.  I think the above examples strike the right balance.  Personal insults are the Republican way of compaigning.  They are divisive and leave the winner unable to govern.  Although they have won elections, the Republicans have been unable to govern.  (I am open to the argument that they do not actually want to govern--they only want to line the pockets of their rich benfactors, but that is another matter.  We want to govern.)  The Rove/Bush way of compaigning has left millions of Americans--including me-- feeling like strangers in their own country.  It is time for that to stop, and it is also good politics.  At the end of the day, Obama wants to govern, and if he insults and alienates a substantial portion of the population it will be difficult for him to do so.  Call me effete, even ineffectual, but at the end of the day, I want all Americans to feel include in the process and we want to govern.

I'd offer this reminder to the columnist for across-the-pond publication The Guardian:

How dare you suggest that Barack Obama criticize the character of Sen. McCain, who was a prisoner of war?  John, who was a prisoner of war, McCain, was a prisoner of war. Attacking his character in any way would be like attacking the character of a prisoner of war, which John McCain was.

Also, the media would like to remind you that he's a maverick. A maverick prisoner of war, who prayed all the time and suddenly loves talking about the huge role his faith played throughout his life, especially during the times that he was a prisoner of war. No, that's not a retroactive, perfectly timed and cynical embrace of faith, and how dare you suggest that about John McCain, who was a prisoner of war.

A Noun, a Verb and Prisoner of War.

Attacking McCain on his personal wealth is not a sound tactic.  Many voters believe that wealthy people are less likely to use their power to take bribes because they don't need the money.  Also, FDR had a lot of personal wealth, but still managed to persuade people he cared about their personal well being.  McCain is vulnerable on his economic policy--that is what Obama should stick to.  

yep, leave it to the VP, leave it to his surrogates. McCain has lost me with his style of politics, and I actively supported him during the primaries. I planned to vote for Obama but would have gotten over a McCain win quickly, now I am just starting to hate the son of a bitch. He will come in with a mandate of not being Obama. Where are commercials asking how McCain will improve the lives of Americans? McCain has been running for President for years, but can he govern?

Attacking McCain because his wealth makes him out of touch with the average voter does work, especially since McCain is only vaguely aware of technology. We just need a grocery scanner moment with him.

A techonology test - hand McCain the new I-Phone and ask him to retrieve his email.  

While the capaign season is far from over, I think we have a pretty good nomination here for most detestable statement. This is from CNN.com today:

Dole campaign spokesman Dan McLagan downplayed the potential statewide impact of the MoveOn buy, saying Dole had already been hit with a million dollars in outside spending, “and they are welcome to spend more. That dog ain't gonna hunt down here. These are the same surrender monkeys that called for a peaceful response to the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Their credibility in North Carolina is pretty low."

Hmmm, interesting in that there's not so much as a smidgen of truth and fact to back this up. Using the deaths of 3,000 Americans for such a cheap stunt is quite amoral. But, hey, just as long as those deficit-contributing tax cuts keep coming in, what the heck, though, right, Repubs?

(By the way, if memory serves, the Bush administration gave al Qaeda and bin Laden a 2-month start before invading Afghanistan. Not a "peaceful" response, to be sure, but a pretty lame-headed one, at that, no?)

Obama should really hammer the Dole staff over this.

Please show us the polling number that says that voters are concerned whether their presidential candidate can use an IPhone---please!  Most voters over 40 could care less.  However, the latest polls do show that almost 50% of voters believe Obama is not experienced enough to be president, and 35% believe he is not patriotic enough.  Perhaps this is why he can never break through the 48% threshold.

Nice rounding errors Cal. By your math does 85% of the voting public believe Obama to be a terrorist? 35% believe he isn't patrotic enough? You should see a proctologist to pull the rest of every thing else out of there, it's not healthy.

hey cal, 98% of American statisticians agree that McCain is really old and likely to die during his term than survive it. He will be 72 in August. 72! I don't expect him to be able to use the iphone, but the question is how long will it be before he tries to answer a banana?

Cal,

Please back away from the keyboard, Cal.  Clearly, it is not good for someone in your condition.  Perhaps a nice nap, or a glass of warm milk?  No, how about a glass of port?  Something to help soothe the ragged edges, just enough to see something rather important.

You see, some people have this extraordinary characteristic as a part and parcel of who they are as human beings - yes, yes, I am quite sure that you have heard of it, it is called 'a sense of humor'.  

Now, it may simply be that this particular joke was a little weak, I will grant you that possibility, but I fear that you simply may not really understand that some like to tell a joke, trade a barb or two, make a funny.  I think you may have heard a great many people laughing at some point in your life.  They have this odd beast called a sense of humor.  You may want to give it a try.  It is not dangerous, it won't lead to dancing, or loose living, or even turn you into a progressive.  P.J. O'Rourke, as conservative as they come, has a delightful sense of humor.  I mean goodness, gracious, he even managed to draw a few chuckles out of his reading of Adam Smith.  So we know that it is an acceptable public trait, even for folks like you.

So, perhaps you should take more than a few deep breaths, shake yourself out of whatever cantankerous funk you are in (and please, stop yelling at the kids to get off of your grass), and remind yourself that sometimes, especially on this list, we like to make light of some of the blog entries.

Ok?  Good, I feel so much better now.  I would hate for you to have some kind of 'episode' because of something you read here.

Those are not my numbers, they come from the LA Times/Bloomberg poll.  Chris Matthews just got done discussing them and was shocked as well that only 44% of voters thought that Obama had the "right experience" to be president.  

Another post from Tomasky's blog details Rick Warren's lesser known crazy ideas on evolution:

www.guardian.co.uk/.../religion.usa

"All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty."

That's just lovely.  Give that man a TV show!

I'm sorry I don't have a sense of humor about the fact that my party picked a weak candidate.  We had the chance, the first time since Nixon left office, to have a cakewalk in the election, and we pick a guy with the thinness resume of any presidential candidate in almost 70 years.  HA HA.

the poll to which cal is referring can be found here: www.latimes.com/.../41709055.pdf

Saying that "the latest polls show that almost 50% of voters believe Obama is not experienced enough to be president, and 35% believe he is not patriotic enough" is a pretty big distortion of the questions as they were actually asked.

There are actually some good results in the poll.  For example, when the candidates' positions on energy are explained in more detail than "drill or don't drill," Obama's plan is favored (albeit by a modest margin).    He's also solidly winning the questions about the economy in general.

There's room for improvement (obviously, since he was up double digits in the last poll) but the sky isn't falling

I'll paste in my post from yesterday's Obama Defends his Patriotism thread since it seems to go better here:

prnoonan--"knife to a gunfight"

Yes and no.  Re. patriotism, this is the only line Obama can take.  He certainly can't call McCain unpatriotic.   Re. attacking McCain, yes, Obama needs to stop being polite:

"Yes indeed, John McCain is a patriot.  He cares about America.  But does he care about everyone IN America?  Does he care about tax relief for middle class Americans, hard-working Americans like all of you here at this VFW convention?  John McCain wants to follow the Bush-Cheney disaster plan and shift the tax burden off the richest Americans onto YOU!  John McCain cares about America, no question, but does he care about you?  How many of you here know an older person who relies on Social Security who counts on that check each month to pay the rent and put food on the table?  John McCain wants to END Social Security.  He wants to sell it off to the highest bidder!  John McCain cares about America, but ask yourself, does he care about you?  And how about health care?  John McCain says that America's health care system is hunky dory.  Couldn't be better.  No changes required.  But what then about the FORTY MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE?  We know that John McCain cares about America, but does John McCain care about you?"

Cal: let's not rehash the primaries.  You now have a binary choice before you: McCain or Obama.  If you are a Democrat and, more important, if you truly believe in the Democratic Party programme, this kind of "nyah nyah nyah, wuah wuah wuah" commentary on Obama is not helpful.  If you don't, then vote for McCain.  

kgrant: you're on a roll man ;-) ...

Ah, I see.  A puma.  Lovely.

So, are you going to just sit there and stew in your resentment, and allow the Republicans to continue their assult on the Constitution and the middle class?  

You didn't get the candidate you wanted.  I understand that, it has happened to me since 1984 (that includes this year).  Guess what, though?  I dusted myself off after the primary battles concluded, and decided I had better swing behind the candidate that the party picked  because I knew that, at the very least, that person was a far shot better than the one on the other ticket.  

Are you going to allow the fact that you didn't get your first choice poison the party's chances this fall?

So, it won't be a cakewalk (which I strongly doubted from the very beginning), does that mean that all you can do now is piss on the candidate of your party?

Stop being a spoiled brat.  

Has Obama actually DONE anything that would warrant questioning his patriotism?  Unless patriotism is a mindless "my country right or wrong" mantra, I don't see that he has.

It's a typical summer night in the Cohn household, which means the Red Sox are on television. McCain

The main lesson that Obama needs to learn isn't that he needs to attack McCain on character, it's that there is no penalty for exaggeration in his negative claims about McCain.  Make the attacks on policy, only frame McCain's policies in the most extreme, tenuously justifiable terms.  Force McCain to defend his policy statements.  Say, "John McCain wants to end Social Security as we know it."  Full stop.  Force McCain so respond with, "Barack Obama says I want to end Social Security.  I've never said any such thing, blah, blah, blah..."  Then hit him back with his, "everything's on the table" statement.

"Has Obama actually DONE anything that would warrant questioning his patriotism?"

He was born in Hawaii (not really America) to a foreigner and a mother who as evidenced by her subsequent temporary migration to Indonesia wasn't sufficiently tied to American soil.  Also he failed to enlist in the military--never mind that at the time he was of an age to have enlisted, the early 1980s, the United States was not at war and pretty much no one who did join the military looked at it as anything other than one of several career options.

I'm glad you are all so comfortable with Obama's campaign.  I think he has big problems looming ahead with his current program.

Cal,

Here is the deal then - provide a few solid examples of how you would right the ship.  Hmm?  What is that?  Oh, that is right.  You actually don't want Obama to right the ship.  You want to see it sink wordlessly out of sight because your candidate didn't win.  

I am sick to death of folks like Cal who whine like whipped curs about the Obama campaign, and then turn around and do nothing about it.  Clearly, a great many on this site have 'issues' with the way Obama is running his campaign.  We want him to go for the jugular.  We want him to smack McCain for his petty, right-wing-nutosphere ravings about Obama's patriotism and assorted whatnot.  But we also realize that we live in the real world, and therefore we understand that while it may not feel great, we have to trust that Obama (who beat St. Hillary) actually knows what the heck he is doing.  

But, dear Cal, you probably harbor a not so secret desire to see Obama lose, say that you can strut and say, 'I told you so.'  How about this, instead of acting like a high-schooler, you attend to business, and work toward getting the flawed candidate elected.

Unless, you would rather McCain won.  Right?  Isn't that the Puma thought these days?  Screw the Constitution.  Screw health care.  Screw an intelligent foriegn policy.  Screw all of those legitimate issues, because, God Dammit, Hillary lost and the wretched infidel who caused her downfall must pay!  McCain cannot possibly do that much damage in four to eight years?  Right?  

You are about to throw away the election out of a fit of pique.  Does that feel good?  Are you proud?

Yes, Obama is a flawed candidate.  Big deal.  You work with the candidate you've got.  I didn't like Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry.  That did not keep me from campaigning on their behalf, or voting for them.  Why?  Because I knew that Reagan, Bush, Dole and Bush were worse.  When are some of you going to pull out your heads out long enough to realize that sometimes life isn't fair, sometimes you don't get the person you wanted, but that you have to make the best of it nonethless.  

kgrant: good post.

One question I have of the critics: have you ever run a political campaign?

And a corollary: have you ever stood, as a candidate, in front of a hostile audience?

The more I think about Saddleback, for example, the more I admire Obama's courage but, more important, his wisdom.  His "nuanced" and windy answers might appear to have not been politically sound, but then, he was in the lion's den: imagine the national disaster if he had said something and had got booed by the Christian crowd.  He simply could not get out and start telling jokes or anecdotes about abortion or how stupid people who believe in creationism (including Rick Warren) actually are.  His approach blunted any attack he might have received from the audience.  

But the thing is: he went there.  He did not have to; he would not have faulted for it.  But he went there, and he comported himself with poise and respect.  As someone who was forced into just such a situation - young enough not to know better, I left politics for the masochists after university - I can really appreciate just how much it took to do it voluntarily and to come out unscathed.

This is the measure of the candidate: and next time anyone offers any suggestions or criticism, always ask, "would YOU do better?"  If your answer is yes, then the question is, "why haven't you?"

I miss the 527s.  If I were running the show, I'd have an McCain adultery hit piece up on Christian radio all over the country... directly tie it to the first marriage but insinuate it's more recent too (which is the DC scuttlebutt).  Follow that up with a national buy hitting him hard on the GI Bill, going right at his perceived strength on military issues.  Hitting on issues isn't effective.  Or didn't you learn anything from 1988, 2000, 2002, 2004.  Need to follow the Cobra Kai creed: strike first, strike hard, no mercy sir.

"Or didn't you learn anything from 1988, 2000, 2002, 2004."

Generals always fight the last war, and politicians who lose tend to run against last year's candidate.  It is possible to learn the wrong lessons from history.  You can also remember 1996, when no amount of negative and personal attacks against Clinton worked.  You're right that Obama's campaign needs to hit back, but HE cannot be perceived to be an angry black young man, and he cannot be perceived to be hitting back at Granmpa McCain's Military Record and Record of Honourable Service.  Remember also the basic principles of jujitsu and judo: you don't always have to strike first, or strike hard at all; a well-timed hit to the solar plexus does far more damage than battering someone's skull with bare knuckles ...

Obama's punches land but they don't do any damage because he's a featherweight punching a heavyweight.

The problem with Obama is not a matter of strategy or tactics. The problem is more fundamental -- Democrats choose poseurs as candidates, men who appear substantial on the surface, but when you start looking more closely, the mask slips. Underneath John Kerry the war hero was an indifferent soldier who hid his own military records: why, if his military heroism is the basis of his campaign? Underneath Obama's frilly hopeandchangewearetheones rhetoric is a streetcorner agitator who preaches the gospel of the evils of the white man and government as the cure to all ills.

Do you people actually not see these things? Because they are absolutely obvious to the average American voter. And this is why a crippled, 72-year-old, divorced, two-time cancer survivor is going to kick your candidate's ass.

Democrats will never win national elections until they start believing and acting upon values held by a majority of the American people. All of George Soros' money isn't gonna change that until YOU change. Obama will not lead again until he loses the election. You read it here first.

"He simply could not get out and start telling jokes or anecdotes about abortion or how stupid people who believe in creationism (including Rick Warren) actually are."

This is exactly why Democrats don't win national elections in the United States.

Rick Warren wrote a book that sold 35 million copies around the world. How many books have you sold, genius?

And yet you people are smarter than everybody. Do you really  not see how repulsive you are?

Gotta love it.  Democrats nominate a guy who promises to change to Washington & politics for the better and then advise him to fight dirty, when it becomes clear that he can't manage to transcend putative Republican politics before he's even officially nominated.  Should he actually be elected, I look forward to complaining that he promised to be a uniter, not a divider.

His momentum has vanished, the race has drawn to a dead heat, and Republicans are, maybe for the first time, showing some real optimism.

Rick Warren also believes that dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time, which is complete lunacy. I would call it willfully ignorant rather than stupid, but believing in creationism, especially the young earth variety, requires ignoring so many facts that it is hard for me to take a person with those beliefs seriously. It is not a question of preferring one opinion over another, but rather of believing fervently in something that is demonstrably not true.

So, yes, he is a successful author and more power to him for that. He may have inspired his readers, and he deserves credit for that. But that doesn't change the fact that some of his views are nutty. So to bring this back to Obama, it is pretty obvious that iObama's recipe had to be different from McCain's for that meeting, simply because his political views were so different from the majority of the audience. The original poster may have put it crudely, but was essentially correct.

Meet Obama's Fixer by Michelle Cottle The Invisible Hand Slaps Conservatives Again: When Real Life

Thanks Jeff.  You're far more patient than I in responding to stuff like,

"Rick Warren wrote a book that sold 35 million copies around the world. How many books have you sold, genius?

And yet you people are smarter than everybody. Do you really  not see how repulsive you are?"

Actually, I do think I am "smarter" than anyone over the age of twelve (which is when I learned about evolution) who thinks dinosaurs and humans walked on the earth at the same time, just as I am objectively smarter than any educated adult who believes in a flat earth or that the earth is the centre of the solar system.  The fact that 35 million pruchasers of his books don't have the same aprpeciation of science - of basic facts - that I and, oh, a couple of billion people who are not evangelical Christians hold means exactly nothing.  Incidentally, Jacqueline Susan also sold millions of books, so did Agatha Christie: does not make them Einsteins, and the buyers are their books do not have a monopoly on wisdom or on rationality.

Rick Warren is not running for President of the United States. A man who refused to vote to ban infanticide in the State of Illinois is. I'd say you have much bigger problems than Rick Warren.

But rail against all us stupid bitter clingers if you must. It won't win you any elections, because geniuses like you are by definition a tiny elite fraction of voters, but keep on stroking yourselves and denigrating the majority of Americans. Far be it from me to interfere with your slow-motion electoral suicide.

"because geniuses like you are by definition a tiny elite fraction of voters"

You're not bitter at all.  Actually, I am not running for office, am not American, and don't even live in the US.  I'm sad that the Western world has to be led by a chimp like Bush or, potentially, a chump like McCain, but we go with the friendly superpower we have and not the one we hope to have ...

In any society, educated people tend to be a tiny fraction of the whole; not an "elite", whatever that might mean, but a small minority.  In most societies, it is considered a virtue to spend years to develop an expertise, with the expectation that those who have been educated - the doctors, the engineers, the computer specialists, the scientists and, yes, the lawyer and judges - would give back to the society that has nurtured them, and would be appreciated for their efforts.  This is not to denigrate the "working man" - the essence of democracy is that our votes count the same way - but the quid pro quo is that those who, for whatever reason, have not had the benefit of higher education do not, for their part, denigrate the educated and the specialists.  As you appear to be doing.

You go to your doctor - assuming you do - because of his or her education and expertise; economics, politics and administration are no less complex than than the human body.  To rail against "elites" as you do shows not how democratic or down to earth you are, but how fucked up the country is if, indeed, you represent the majority.  After all, the "hard working American, white American", may well hammer in the nails or weld the panels that make up the ICBMs and the radars and the Stealth bombers that protect your sorry ass, but it is the "elites", however much you hate them, and the geniuses, who design and make operational these same weapons.

So, my advice is, cool it on the "elite" crapdoodle.  McCain is married to an heiress; Clinton is worth $100 million; Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard; Cheney was on the board of Haliburton - these are elites, not me, not anyone who's got an education, and not Obama.

Now if only the idiot would throw punches at Putin instead of McCain...

"This is not to denigrate the "working man" - the essence of democracy is that our votes count the same way - but the quid pro quo is that those who, for whatever reason, have not had the benefit of higher education do not, for their part, denigrate the educated and the specialists.  As you appear to be doing."

I thank you for your exquisite condescension, my lord. I see I hit a nerve. It's really tragic that it's troglodytes like me who decide elections in this country and not international ubermenschen like yourself.

You're the only person denigrating anyone here. My central point is that Democrats don't win national elections because they are arrogant, presumptuous, condescending, dishonest assholes like yourself. Keep on proving me right. You're Exhibit A in Why Barack Obama Cannot Possibly Win an Election in the United States of America.

icarus, I'd maybe agree with you if McCain hadn't thrown the first punch.  But he has.  Obama looks like a pussy every time he whines about McCain questioning his patriotism.  And America doesn't elect pussies.  That may not be ideal (indeed, the election of Bush should have proven this)... but I live in the reality-based world.  Negative. Campaigning. Works.

Moreover, even if he "wins" by getting McCain to clarify or the NYT to issue a "stinging editorial," he loses... because the news cycle was this dispute over Obama's patriotism.  I can't understand why/how Chicago is falling into this trap.  It's pathetic.  Change the F-ing subject (... I don't know, maybe back to president shit-for-brains?).

And re 1996: you're forgetting that Clinton spent the whole spring carpet-bombing swing states with negative ads against Dole.  That's part of why that election was over before it started.

A relevant comment if you were talking about Bush in 2000 . . .

By definition, if you are geniuses, the geniuses that save my "sorry ass," then you are an elite, by your own definition.

You know, we ugly American bitter clinger retards who object to a baby being left to choke to death on his own blood following a botched abortion rather than being helped. Those bitter clinger retards. The majuority of Americans who are not going to vote for the kind of monster who would excuse and support that kind of behavior.

Enjoy your Euro-style cup of STFU.

"You're the only person denigrating anyone here."

***

"Do you really  not see how repulsive you are?"

"I thank you for your exquisite condescension, my lord."

***

Sarcasm is the mark of a small mind; insults (and "repulsive" is an insult) merely reaffirm the smallness of the mind; but to turn around and cry "denigration" after this display of intellectual weight takes chutzpah.

Churchill said that a democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the ones man has tried in his lamentable history.  It's true that every time I hear a sentient being defend ignorance, dogma and supersitition, and am remined that the same being actually votes to elect my leaders, a shudder runs down my back; I remind myself of Churchill's axiom and reflect on that lamentable history - and hope that even as the Catholic Church saw the error if its infallibility in the matter of Gallileo and Darwin, even as the Ayatollahs in Iran are realising that there are such things as electrons and protons even if the Koran does not mention them, the Rick Warrens of the world would one day see the light.

YOU did not hit a nerve; but given your sarcasm, I seem to have done so.  Were the Gom Jabbar here, I'd have no doubt which of us would come out of the test in one piece.

Prnoonan: Generals fight the last war; sometimes they draw the right lessons (Guderian in 1940; Powell in 1991), but often they mistake what has changed since the last war.  Elections are no different.  Obama is black.  McCain is white.  Obama is young.  McCain is old.  Obama is exotic.  McCain is a war hero.  If Wesley Clark, a four-star general with a far more distinguished record than McCain's, is not permitted to make a simple and credible observation about McCain's experience without being shred to pieces, then you can imagine how going overtly negative on McCain would simply lose votes for Obama rather than win them.

Obama has other strengths and he will play on them.  Once he has his VP, the VP can start shredding McCain.  But not now.

JWL: "Now if only the idiot would throw punches at Putin instead of McCain...".  Why, if President Bush is involved in a romantic relationship with ex-Prez Putin, should Obama - a private citizen - be throwing punches at Bush's paramour?  Anything Obama says about Georgia or Russia, like McCain's statement, would be posturing.  I'd rather have a correct policy enunciated by a man or woman in power, than "punches" in the air by a candidate.  

"By definition, if you are geniuses, the geniuses that save my "sorry ass," then you are an elite, by your own definition."

I have not defined "elite"; I did not claim educated people were "geniuses"; you put "sorry ass" in quotes, but those are your words not mine.  In fact, what I said was, "not an "elite", whatever that might mean, but a small minority."  So, if you are going to throw accusations around, at least be correct.

I don't actually think there is anything wrong with "elites", appropriately defined.  Our Olympians are our sports elites- and more power to them.  Billy Graham was part of the religious elite firmament of the country - and bully for him and his son.

"Those bitter clinger retards."  Not my words, yours.  They demonstrate your bitterness, not my condescension.  You are against pro-choice politicians, vote against them; don't mix in "bitterness" and "elite" language, which comes right out of communist propaganda rather than Reagan's Shining City on the Hill.

Again, these are your words.  No one I know, no matter how educated

"Enjoy your Euro-style cup of STFU."  

Tee hee - not "bitter" at all ... no nerves hit whatsoever ... quite amusing.  May God bless us all ...

"You're the only person denigrating anyone here. My central point is that Democrats don't win national elections because they are arrogant, presumptuous, condescending, dishonest assholes like yourself."

You might want to look up the word "denigrate" and then reread those two sentences.  Yeah, I know, us elitists with our fancy-pants dictionaries.

Alan: :-)

icarusr: I think the honeymoon period has long been over between Bush and Putin.  In fact, Bush has made it quite clear he hates his guts with his heated argument with Putin over the phone re: Georgia.

I'm not against pro-choice politicians. I'm against defenders and protectors of infanticide. I see you don't have the courage -- certainly understandable in a Europoean -- to face the truth. Sugar-coat it however you want. We Americans who are not smart enough to perceive your superiority are the ones who will not vote for your hero in the fall. Deal with it. Tee-hee.

If you are really believe that someone who knows how to use the word "ubermenschen" doesn't know how to read an English dictionary, then there's not much hope for you in the brain department. And if you think that sarcastically telling someone to read a dictionary is original, intelligent or amusing -- even enough to post on a blog --  there's absolutely no hope for your maturity level.

I'm about done for today with receiving your wisdom from there on the Olympian heights where Europeans and superior Americans reside. Keep on preaching to the choir here in the fever swamps as your hopeandchange agent nosedives. Have a great convention!

"Bush has made it quite clear he hates his guts with his heated argument with Putin over the phone re: Georgia."

Meh, lovers' quarrel.

"I see you don't have the courage -- certainly understandable in a Europoean -- to face the truth."

My God, now you're channelling Jack Nicholson?  I'm not European either.  And no one defends or protects infanticide: you're too high on Republican speaking points.  Finally, I don't have a hero.  As for whom you for, up to you man; no skin off my nose.  I know that my country is solvent; it's infrastructure is being addressed; we have universal health care; our Supreme Court is sane and our civil liberties are being protected - so on and so forth.  You want to vote for a third Bush term?  Go ahead, be my guest!

"Bush has made it quite clear he hates his guts with his heated argument with Putin over the phone re: Georgia."

Meh, lovers' quarrel.

"I see you don't have the courage -- certainly understandable in a Europoean -- to face the truth."

My God, now you're channelling Jack Nicholson?  I'm not European either.  And no one defends or protects infanticide: you're too high on Republican speaking points.  Finally, I don't have a hero.  As for whom you for, up to you man; no skin off my nose.  I know that my country is solvent; it's infrastructure is being addressed; we have universal health care; our Supreme Court is sane and our civil liberties are being protected - so on and so forth.  You want to vote for a third Bush term?  Go ahead, be my guest!

"If you are really believe that someone who knows how to use the word "ubermenschen" doesn't know how to read an English dictionary, then there's not much hope for you in the brain department."

Wow ... wow ...

The problem isn't that Obama can't throw a punch, or is unwillingly to go negative. The problem is that the media will not act as a amplifier of his negative framing against, or redefinition of, McCain (as they did against Hillary in the primary). At the same time, they do routinely amplify the negative message McCain puts forward against Obama. McCain's attacks on Obama create media "buzz" -- Obama's do not.

For instance, Obama made some strong attacks on McCain yesterday, but last night on CNN, the story was all about Hillary -- and how McCain is supposedly using lessons he learned from her against Obama. Read MoDo's deranged column this morning. Same storyline taken to an absurdist degree.

While it warms the hearts of Clinton haters, this nonsense doesn't work in Obama's interest. It isn't "anti-Obama" -- but it is "anti" Obama's strategic message. It provides an opportunity to repeat (and therefore amplify) all the McCain campaign's negative assertions about Obama while it detracts from and obscures Obama's attempts to (negatively) redefine McCain. It also uses Clinton as a foil for excusing McCain's tactics (in the same way that Gore was used to excuse Bush 1's deplorable Willie Horton gambit in '88) and furthers a negative story about Democrats in general.

The media may be much more positive toward Obama than they have been toward other recent Democratic  presidential candidates. But that does not mean they are willing to help support his (necessary) lines of attack against McCain. And that, in the long run, presents a serious problem for the campaign.

Each time, the so-called "liberal" media (a guaranteed laugh line in the ironyroad household) turns itself into a Repug loud-hailer for the purposes of election "balance."

And then the Repugs will turn around and kick them in the goonies anyhow.

esmense: very perceptive.  I suspect, though, that the only thing for Obama to do is hammer away, because complaining about the media works only for whiney Republicans.  I do have faith in the general fairness of the average American voter, and I think that at the end of the day, the message will get through.  Whether it is a message that will have buyers, of course, is a different issue.  You have the "dinosaurs and man" crowd exemplified in this thread by a guy who considers the correct use of "Übermensch" to be the litmus test of literacy ... whether s/he absords Obama's message is, of course, a different proposition entirely.

"If you are really believe that someone who knows how to use the word "ubermenschen" doesn't know how to read an English dictionary, then there's not much hope for you in the brain department. And if you think that sarcastically telling someone to read a dictionary is original, intelligent or amusing -- even enough to post on a blog --  there's absolutely no hope for your maturity level."

Ah, I see.  Apparently pointing out when someone laughably contradicts himself from one sentence to the next is stupid and immature.  Thankfully, TNR has people like yourself ready to contribute with original and intelligent remarks like calling people elitists and "dishonest assholes" or claiming that Obama is "a streetcorner agitator who preaches the gospel of the evils of the white man."  Hell, you can even call people elitists in foreign languages (as an aside, your post actually indicates that you do not in fact know how to use the word correctly; übermenschen is plural while übermensch is singular).  Impressive.

esmense makes a very good point.  The Obama campaign has actually contributed a bit to this by not revealing their ads to the media in advance.  In fact, they don't even post them on their website (or at least not in their own section.  Maybe they're there but difficult to find).  What's particularly galling is that when polled, the majority of voters say the media are trying to help Obama win.  If so, they've sure got a funny way of doing it.

Correction, I misread ajmalkov's original post.  The usage was correct.  My mistake

AlanSP writes:  "What's particularly galling is that when polled, the majority of voters say the media are trying to help Obama win."

That's because voters aren't very bright.  Or, to put it another way, most people don't have the time or the interest to check every media site when they're asked a question.  They reach into their soft memory base and find -- guess what! -- McCain and Hillary both complaining about how Obama is given a free ride, and they take the complaint -- a rhetorical move -- to be evidentiary truth.

Thus it's important to get some control over such "truths" in election year:  for example, it would be good for the Obama campaign to control the truth (in this case, one for which there's evidence) that McCain has no solutions or even an intelligent recognition of the major problems facing us, and Obama has both.