"and maybe even unfair" ...

I agree.  Utterly unfair to draw such an inference.  I demand that Obama withdraw this ad and apologise for the underhanded and entirely untrue suggestion that - well, whatever the suggestion is.  McCain has never seen a Lobbyist (... he didn't like ...) and has never worked for, I mean, with one.

Democrats do NOT have the right to be unfair.  And here I was, thinking that Obama was going to usher in a new tone of civility, new politics.  Hypocrite!  For Shame.

[This snippet was approved by the Hyprocrites R Us coalition, a 527 that has never heard of the Republican Party.]

The Keating 5 angle will get plenty of air.  The gloves are coming off.  McCain is a flip-flopping airhead who used to be a war hero and a maverick before he became a crook and a neocon.  

Maybe it's also aimed at Ossetians and Abkhazians.

What's unfair about suggesting a quid pro quo between Reed and McCain?  Do you think sleazeball lobbyist Reed is not aiming to squeeze back into Republican politics through McCain?

And please, more commercials showing Bush and McCain together!

If this is a kidney punch, what's "Obama would rather lose a war to be president"?  A kick in the head, perhaps?  Or using a knuckle duster?

Is there a reason the following story appeared and then seemed to vanish? 'McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs' <http://tinyurl.com/4s94q5>

timteeter  said:

"And please, more commercials showing Bush and McCain together!"

Every Obama commercial should end with this image (or at least all the negative ones).

I'm afraid that this is what has become of it. The loser has to go negative and given enough time it will start to work. Then the winner has to respond, if only to quiet his own party!. All that said, McCain has fundamentally framed this debate on 'character' as Bush did, and is flailing away at Obama's 'character'. However, there is a lot of room for counter-attack, as we see on these blogs. Just Obama hasn't gone there before. Alas, when this is over, both candidates will be hated by at least half the population...

This is not  kidney punch, a kidney punch is:

"What kind of self described "honorable, selfless patriot" would hire the same goon squad who attacked his own family to run his campaign?  Clealry John McCain cares more about gaining power than protecting his family and will do anything to get elected."

My name is Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message.

timteeter:

What's wrong with that statement? Obama really would sacrifice a war to be president.  It's a crying shame that all of those in power are there because of self-driven aspirations and not reluctant leaders like General George Washington.  Kerry was the biggest one of those.  He stood for nothing and just wanted to be president.  Bush may have run in 2000 for selfish aspirations but in 2004, it was to finish a job.

Why is this video "no longer available"?

Wandrey:

[Image of Bush and McCain, at the debate: "take your hands off me."

Image of Bush and McCain, hugging.

Image of McCain, during the primaries, saying how he worked to get Bush elected, and then reelected .. following by a deranged laugh.

"America can't afford a third term of Bush's policies, led by the flip-flopper in chief."]

JWL - its a nonsensical statement actually.  

Obama has no ability to simply choose to "lose a war to win an election.  Since you're mentioning George Washington, Presidents, let alone candidates, aren't magicians or a Kings. They have two other houses of government to respond to, not to mention his employers.  Obama makes his pitch and we the people say yay or nay.  No magic, no tricks - don't vote for him if you don't want to.

Obama represents the majority of the American people who'd like to see a plan implemented for winding down the war.  It's a construct of hysterics (typically with no skin in the game, natch) to say its "losing", it was lost before the first shot was ever fired.  We had fools in charge - including me, an American citizen who supported it -  and lost long ago.

We've never had a defined mission and never will.  I'm willing to say the surge worked, which is great, but we can't maintain 10 billion a month for eternity to assuage the spoiled egos of Americans.  Wars end, and this one will too.  Obama can't do that without our permission.

Minimal impact.

People expect politicians to be in bed with corrupt lobbyists. Especially ones in power as long as McCain.

Obama would be better off showing McCain's flip flopping or bellicose, hot headed, border line insane FP statements and persona.

Scare the crap out of people with his anger mgt issues and militarism.

Corrupt politicians! Nobody gives a sh*t.

jwl, that is, to be frank, idiotic.  You think that, had 9/11 not happened and the U.S. not been at war that Bush wouldn't have run for reelection?  Yeah, he didn't *want* to be President anymore, but gosh darn it, someone had to beat those terrorists.

Back to the topic at hand, this isn't the type of ad I want to see from Obama.  Ralph Reed is not a good reason to reject McCain.  He should start hammering away on health care.

I'd also like to point out my apparently incredible influence on the Obama media team.  A  day after I wrote "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," the Obama campaign came out with this: link.brightcove.com/.../bctid1740023369

The ad is a good start, but the Obama people can and must do better than framing McCain as someone who plays "the same old games." It's a good message, but it isn't going to stick until they pry McCain away from his image as a political maverick with unquestionable integrity.

More forceful language please. Keep it simple. Make it ball-busting.

JW,

Please just stop.  Stop contributing to the incessant foolishness of decrying 'ambition' in politicians and politics.  My goodness, when has this ever been a pure business, one devoid of possible personal ambition or hope for personal gain.  Solon?  Percicles?  Nope, not even then.  No, not even sainted George Washington. You do recall his entry into the French-Indian War?  No?  I assure you, it was not solely out of selfless purity for God and Country (or even Commonwealth).

We need to expunge this fallacious notion that somehow politics can be divorced from the human condition, and typical human characteristics.  It is simply a part of who we are to enter into fields that hold some interest for us.  You have personal ambition in your field.  You want to succeed, you have the belief that you can do an outstanding job, and you will make certain that you can advance.  That is what we do.  We challenge ourselves to move forward, to get ahead, improve, to be better than the person in the next cubicle.  

Second, why is it that ambition is a bad thing?  I mean that. Why have we decreed that people who want to get ahead are somehow evil, corrupt villains worthy of our scorn and derision?  You can't lead if you don't think that you have a better sense of the world than others.  You cannot succeed if you don't have a certain egotism about you.  Yes, skill is fundamentally necessary, but you also have to know how to work your way up through the system so that you can affect that system.  What?  Lincoln was simply a selfless man lamenting his country's slow decline into war and grudgingly decided that it was him or no one else?  Churchill and FDR were paragons of humility and school-boy hesitancy?  These people had ambition, and thank goodness that they did, for that drive is a necessary component to getting anything done.  

Yes, ambition can over-wrought, it can be distorted, it can pervert.  But you cannot argue that we can do without it, nor can you argue that somehow politics would be wonderful if we could simply remove the scourge of ambition.  It is what the ambitious person does with their skill set that can become problematic.  

An additional thought - can we cease and desist with this absurd charge of treason that McCain and his deranged henchmen have been leveling against Obama?  He simply has a different plan for the conclusion of this war than McCain - and no, that plan does not entail a desire to 'lose' the war  so that he can become President.  It is different, not treasonous.  You may not like it, but that does not make it nefarious or criminal.  Unless.  Unless you have actual proof.  Evidence.  Something that can actually make the case.  

And please, the pablum about Bush simply hanging around to 'finish a job' is abject nonsense.  Bush wanted to finish the job all right, but it was not simply out of the goodness of his heart.   Again, I don't fault his ambition.  I do, though, fault just about everything else that he has done, notably his unbelievably stupid decision to wade into Iraq, his trashing of the economy, his myopia concerning the rest of the world, and his assault on the Constitution.  Even then, I would argue he is a wretched president, a fool, dangerous to representational democracy, but not a criminal.  

Cheney, on the other hand...

I understand the desire to go for the jugular all at once, but I wonder if we should consider the possibility that the Obama team knows what it is doing.  

Last winter, when a great many Obama supporters were shrieking (me, included) about Obama not hitting back against Clinton, the Obama team didn't panic, didn't get rattled, and methodically found a way to win the nomination against a well-organized, deeply-funded, candidate with 100% name recognition and a very solid resume.  He won.  But, you will say, it took him so long to put Clinton away.  Yes, yes it did, but then again, the Rev. Wright monkey-wrench could have been large enough to absolutely derail a lesser campaign.  It did not. Even in the midst of that particular crisis, he did enough to win.  May not have been as pretty as they scripted, but it was a victory.

Now, we are in the exact same position.  McCain is the favored son, the man with the unimpeachable record of service, the straight-talker, the maverick, the last honest man in Washington.  Obama is the young punk, thin of resume and build, oddly named and questioned at every turn.  And those of us who would dearly like to see a Democrat in the White House are starting to fight off a panic that is all too familiar.  But this cat doesn't seem like Kerry or Gore, both of whom floundered and flailed when the winds turned against them.  Obama seems to have a pretty good sense of timing and flow.  

So, in this third week of August, just as attention is once again truly turning toward politics (by more than just the obsessives and addicts), Obama is starting to crank up the attacks, slowly but surely.  Notice the number of reports about the harder hitting ads aimed directly at swing states, while the rest of the nation sups on fluffy, feel good ads.  My guess is that once he has a VP at his side, said veep will have the lovely job of sticking the shiv in whenever necessary (which really makes me think it will be Biden).

Lastly, the national polls seem even more meaningless than usual, as Obama seems to know that this is not a national election.  This election is won state by state.  Just as Obama focused on the caucuses as the avenue for victory for the nomination, he will play the local games necessary to win the general.  That, I would guess, takes quite a bit of time to set up.  If you react to all of the foolishness thrown around by the McCain people, you get knocked off your game plan.  

A final caveat.  I don't know if Obama is this smart.  I don't.  But I get the sense that he has a clear understanding of how this is going to play out, and probably always knew that it was going to be close.  I give him this because he was able to beat Senator Clinton, no mean feat that.  Knocking off McCain certainly can't be expected to be any easier.

This ad  must the change we've been waiting for.

Good posts kgrant - Obama appears to trust himself while Gore and Kerry did not.

What's an idiot.

Now Obama will  be whining:

The McCain campaign hits back, invoking Bill Ayers:

   “Barack Obama’s ad is ridiculous. Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail.

   “However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.’

   “The question now is, will Barack Obama immediately call on the University of Illinois to release all of the records they are currently withholding to shed further light on Senator Obama’s relationship with this unrepentant terrorist?” --McCain spokesman Brian Rogers

I agree Obama's campaign will have to turn increasingly negative. That will drive Obama's positive numbers down (and negatives up). It should take the shine off McCain. But what about Obama?

This will sound harsh coming from a committed Obamaphile, but it has to be said: Obama's bright, shining, moralistic appeal isn't just a strong suit, it's his only hand to play with undecided and independent voters. Trouble is he's played it already and it's no longer that new or impressive.

Obama can't simply look and sound and feel the part, he has to own the role, then the audience, then the play. But, to get to the top of the game and hold it, he has to win his public. To do that, he must progress by triumph to triumph in the starring role, and catch the drift.

Obama certainly plays the role convincingly, but he doesn't own it, yet. And he really can't own it by trashing his competition, even if his competition is only a bunch of schmucks. As it is in this campaign to date Obama himself is his only competition. He has to be the real deal. If his inner schmuck (everybody knows Obama has one as much as anybody) comes out too much, he'll lose the role and the rest follows as it must.

What can Obama do now to prove himself, and prove himself again, and again. He has an aweful lot going for him but *he has to demonstrate it*, not once or twice but often and consistently, or I'm afraid he will be toast.

Tell my I'm wrong, Better yet, tell me what Barack can do, 'cuz whatever it is, he's got to start doing it fast.

Tomeg -- I agree with you in theory, but that's really territory left for the running mate -- especially for Obama. That's why it's so important that the running mate be a good surrogate and a capable speaker in addition to an otherwise qualified individual. That's also why Biden's name is so hot right now.

Per ambition, it's not ambition the McCain campaign is emphasizing, it's "ambition." The difference is the latter is code for "uppity black." I can see no reason accusing Obama of ambition, as kgrant outlines. If one were to accuse any other politician living or dead of ambition, as if there isn't/wasn't a politician who lacked it. Nope, it's pure racist code. That's why it has sickened on top of infuriating me. It's despicable, but hey, it's politics, anything goes, right?

tomeg,

I'm wondering when Obama emphasized Clinton's   "ambition, was it a pure sexist code? I guess so.

It's despicable, but hey, it's politics, anything goes, right?

I'm not sure I'd want to get into a gutter fight with the GOP. Obama has got to knock the nat-sec'y issue off the table, and fast, and get the discussion back to the economy and health care: pure and simple, bread and butter populism. Otherwise, if it's a nat-sec'y election, he loses. No matter how many or how nasty his attack ads.

tomeg,

One counterexample to your argument.  When Bush and Gore were running in 2000, I had a conservative friend tell me that he just didn't like someone who "wanted" to be president.  He seemed to think that the president was a job you took because you were supposed to not because you wanted to.

I still to this day think it's bullshit that you would want someone who has no interest in the office, because that person is going to do a lousy job.  I think my friend got what he wished for.

Omigosh.  I agree with tep--except that I don't think you take national security "off the table."  You just need to neutralize it, which is very doable.

you're right Tep.

I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that Reed - who was hip deep in the Abramoff scandal - is part of the McCain campaign.  For all McCain's pretense at being a reformer, here he is in bed with the DeLay / Abramoff crime syndicate -- and this is after McCain got rid of the lobbyists that were all over the place in his campaign leadership circle.  It's actually pretty shocking to realize how vulnerable McCain is - did he learn nothing from his Keating 5 disgrace?

It is time to remind people of the K-Street machine Tom DeLay and the GOP built and where that all led - if McCain is connected to all that mud, I say throw it at him!

Neil

I think this is pretty weak for "a kidney punch"... it's going to be harder to pin "crooked" on McCain than other easier, perhaps even more accurate, attacks... but whatever...

To all those saying that Obama is holding back, I say... fine.  Let's watch the convention.  If it's not a non-stop negative attack against Bush, McSame and the Rs, then will you start getting upset?  I want Denver 2008 to make NY 2004 look like a Quaker meeting.

Paris Hilton, meet Ralph Reed: "Howdy! You know, I'm an upstanding man of faith who absolutely deplores the notion that Christ is being kept out of our classrooms, but I must say, your legs sure looked nice on your YouTube response video to my longtime wranglin' buddy John. And um, I like the black-and-white video too!"

Paris: "Well thanks! I like my legs too!"

Ralph:"You're welcome! Those gams could turn me into an 'old white-haired dude'"