There are a lot of one issue voters who were disappointed that they couldn't vote for a Candidate in 2004 who was against the Iraq war.

The Obama campaign hears everything you said from most of the liberal blogs every day, and they don't do it. What do they know that you don't know that makes them so timid?

(Then again, that's what was said to/about Kerry the last time around, and I didn't hear what made him so timid either.)

How about John McCain just isn't that smart?

Oh. I forgot. American voters seem to prefer a guy that doesn't intimidate them intellectually.

Wait, are you saying he's not a warmonger? He wanted to go to war in pretty much and situation that's presented itself in the last 20 years.
His wife won't make an extra $400k per year if his plan is enacted? The motivation angle is a little weak (most people can't understand how the rich could need more money) but it's undeniably true, it's simple math.
Maybe these tactics won't work, but don't say they're not grounded in reality- give me a real reason.

How about "John McCain is dumb as a rock?"

mcain: an angry, flipflopping, down-in-the-muck codger. got it.

*

Kevin,

Not bad. The too old line is probably Obama's best bet, but it could backfire if McCain has a good night at the presidential debates. But I know a lot of folks who are put off by both Obama's leftism and McCain's age.

John McCain is corrupt. (See Keating Five)

McCain is old and gets confused occasionally.

McCain is running an ugly, smear-based campaign.

McCain has a legendarily short fuse.

McCain is annoyingly self-righteous.

McCain's straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes.

Stock McCain answer to any of these: "My friends, that's an outrageous set of statements from Kevin Drum.I call upon all bloggers my friends, regardless of political affiliation, to denounce and reject the politics of hate."

How about, "John McCain: needs pills to achieve erection."

"Unrepentant warmonger" doesn't have "real grounding in reality"? Unfortunately, I think Obama's campaign is as eager to cede the essential ground as you are, Drum. Following the right wing lead on "character critiques" signals an unwillingness to address the disaster created by the Republicans. Why so weak?

McCain is old and gets confused occasionally.
McCain has a legendarily short fuse.
McCain is annoyingly self-righteous.
McCain's straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes.

That's right Kevin. Because running an ugly, smear based campaign is just really beyond the pale. Good thing you are here to remind us about the issues voters care about most.

Obama and his supporters have shown elements of an effective attack strategy, but they can't seem to sustain it. IMHO, they only need two basic themes:

Re McCain's smear strategy: Respond "more in sorrow than in anger", as in "we are profoundly saddened that Sen. McCain has abandoned his early pledge to make this a campaign of issues rather than pursue the politics of personal destruction which has poisoned this nation for the past 7 years. We will not let false accusations go unanswered, but we will base our campaign on our vision for America's future, not on personal attacks". Send moderate Democrats out to shake their heads during interviews and state sadly that "this is not the McCain we knew and respected."

Re policy issues, go back to the formulation used many times during the primaries: "John McCain has served his country long and honorably, but his ideas are those of the past."

Both these response have the advantage of emphasizing that he is a senile old j**k**s, without saying it out loud, which of course you can't do, since he was a POW forty years ago, for gawds sake!!!!

John McCain will not keep you safe.

The Republicans failed to keep America safe on 9/11.
McCain and the Republicans lied and led America into the Iraq War.
And now McCain is using dangerous language and threatening to go to war with Russia.

LEts amend that first point to read "gets confused regularly."

Sadly it appears a pack of sniveling ninnies are in charge of Obama's messaging. That said it also appears Obama is not in charge of those sniveling ninnies, or else he's happy with his message in which case Democrats are doomed. He's blown his lead in various polls, McCain controls the airwaves and the public believes Putin or (insert demonic scary foreign guy here) can get Obama in a headlock and make him cry "Uncle!". Just what does it say for Obama when McCain is openly running for a 3rd Bush term on steroids, Bush has a 20% approval rating, and Obama's election is even in doubt?

John McCain and Barack Obama are not running for President in a vacuum, in which everyone starts from the same place and the last eight years never happened. In that kind of vacuum a man who was noodling around in the Illinois legislature five years ago doesn't beat a veteran Senator with a lifelong record of public service.

So why are the Obama campaign and so many of Sen. Obama's supporters running against Sen. McCain and his record rather than against President Bush and his record? Campaign convention, I suspect, is the answer to that question as far as Obama's own people are concerned. It's still not a good answer; Bush, not McCain, is the guy with approval ratings of 25% and Bush, not McCain, still drives most positions taken by Republican candidates.

Besides that, the American public still doesn't have a clear picture of what kind of President Obama would be, of how he would operate and of the kind of things that are most important to him (and no, referring people to the Obama campaign's web site is not the way to give them that picture). Bush has been President, McCain has not; Obama can therefore answer questions about himself through comparisons with Bush better than he can through the tit-for-tat with the McCain campaign that we've seen so far.

Finally, much of the Republican base accepted McCain as the nominee because it had to. Plenty of Republicans -- the ones who still admire George Bush -- dislike and resent McCain. For the Democrats to make their campaign about making McCain unpopular doesn't do anything to exploit that tension.

Democrats have been raging against Bush and Cheney for years, and now that they have to make the case for a new Democratic President, when Bush and Cheney are as unpopular as a modern administration has ever been, all they can think of is ways to make John McCain look bad? This seems to me a significant failure of imagination.

Didn't Reagan pretty much put the "old and gets confused" critique to rest already? The bar is pretty high.

I don't get it either. I talk out loud to myself everyday citing the very same points which you mention.

Are the Obama people afraid to start with this stuff too soon? Do they think it will play better during and after the convention?

I can't think of any other reason.

How about the issues? Like, "McCain wants to enact major tax cuts for the rich on top of the Bush tax cuts," and "McCain wants to privatize Social Security."

Like President W. Bush, Sen. McCain has never earned anything through hard work and intelligence. He was a legacy appointment to Annapolis. His admiral father rescued him from his USS Forestall criminal negligence. He has maximized his POW experience for political gain. McCain thinks he is royalty and that he deserves the presidency, not because of his suffering while a POW, but because of the privileges earned by his grandfather's and father's accomplishments. And like President W. Bush, McCain's warmongering is designed not to protect the country, but to appeal to the Chauvinism of the American voter.

Surprised that with this "cone of silence" controversy more people haven't pointed out that whether McCain got the questions early or not, he lied through his teeth. The first question and answer:

WARREN: My first question, was the cone of silence comfortable you were in just now?

MCCAIN: I was trying to hear through the wall.

He didn't say he was still riding in on his bus during the Obama questioning -- he said he was in the cone of silence. Somebody should ask Pastor Warren about that.

Scott Herbst Lets amend that first point to read "gets confused regularly."

Second that. Age isn't really the determining factor here. Look at GW Bush, for cryin' out loud.

Are the Obama people afraid to start with this stuff too soon? Do they think it will play better during and after the convention?

I think that once you start, you can't stop. If Obama were to start with the attack now, he'd had to continue for 2.75 months. I also think he knows that, to most people, a 2.75 month attack will start sounding shrill long before the election, and the effort will peter-out just before it's especially needed.

It's a marathon, and Obama doesn't want to kick early.

Steve Duncan -- For God's sake, please stop spreading the imaginary meme that "Obama has blown his lead." The race has been holding steady for months now with almost no change at all, with Obama having a consistent but very small lead of a couple of points for months now. He hasn't blown anything yet. The sky isn't even close to falling. (This is not to say that his strategy is beyond criticism, but that's a separate point.)

Moreover, as Frank Rich and others have pointed out, he is actually doing better than Ronald Reagan did at a comparable point in 1980. The fact of the matters is that most of the country is barely paying attention to the race and we won't know the real score until, maybe, after the DNC.

In other words, unless you really do want to McCain to win or simply want to create meaningless anger, cool it with the insults and the next time you want to call a large group of very hard working people whom you don't know (and obviously know very little about) "sniveling ninnies," you might want to consider the old adage about what happens when you point a finger.

McCain is old and gets confused occasionally.

I expect Obama will use that talking point just as soon as he's explained how he's campaigned in all 57 states.

Right-on. To say it again, we should delve into and publicize the issue of McCain's foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann lobbying for Georgia, and their promoting to Georgia the idea it would be a neat thing to grab the disputed provinces ("while the world was distracted by the Olympics" as conservative flacks like pantload Goldberg pretend Russia did all on its own initiative ...)

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/mccains-top-foreign-polic_n_118743.html,

McCain's Top Foreign Policy Advisor Got Money From Georgia

PETE YOST | August 13, 2008 05:42 PM EST | AP

"
WASHINGTON — John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.
"

2.) Must Cindy McCain's past remain off the table even for informal purposes? I mean, Obama and the "respectable" wing of the campaign shouldn't remind voters that Cindy stole narcotics from her own charity, but the rest of us can.

3.) Speaking of which: Since the Right made "family values" such a big deal for so long and is still braying over the Edwards train wreck, it is only right and proper for everyone (yes, even the "respectable" elements) to remind voters of how McCain dumped his first wife for Cindy under questionable circumstances, etc.

It takes a while to get used to Obama, since he talks like a grown up.

That's right Kevin. Because running an ugly, smear based campaign is just really beyond the pale. Good thing you are here to remind us about the issues voters care about most.
Posted by: Brad

Brad, by definition a "smear" has to be a false statement. You have your work cut out for you.

mhr: Obama meant that Thomas was picked by Bush41 to please blacks and show what Bush could do to be a pal, not that blacks can't really be good at Supreme Justicing (is that a word?) I'm sure Obama thinks highly of Thurgood Marshall. You are just indulging the usual rightist smear (a real one) that critiquing such affirmative action *acts* is a sort of racism. BTW since conservatives make the majority of gripes against AAction, does that mean that conservatives are more racist?

What makes the GOP so effective is that they have a subterranean smear campaign -- like Swift-boating or the "Obama is a muslim" campaign, that makes attacks made by their mainstream, upfront organizations seem almost moderate by comparison. That way McCain's charge that Obama would lose in Iraq to win the election seems not so bad when compared to what is written in the Corsi book or what is drifting around the Internet. Consequently, the GOP gets it both ways, it smears and can also look sensible.

At the very least, Obama should attack McCain on the issues. I fear that his campaign has fallen so far behind in this effort, that he may have to follow a "hail Mary" strategy where they go very negative and hope that they can salvage a win.

I have been seeing these McCain ads recently that seem completely insane.

How can, "you are worse of than you were four years ago" possibly be a winner for him? Why aren't they saying two years ago to try to blame the democratic congress? Obviously they can't say eight years ago, and sixteen just sounds ridiculous, but how did they end up with four?

Or "fighting corruption in both parties"? Is there anybody who isn't simply reminded of the absurd corruption of the republican party? Sure, the crazy base, and maybe these early ads are more about getting contributions than votes, but it still seems really odd.

Obama's ad seems fine, though I feel like I see half a dozen different commercials every day with windmills in them. Everything from oil companies to car companies are marketing themselves with windmills. Not sure if that is good or bad for him.

Just what does it say for Obama when McCain is openly running for a 3rd Bush term on steroids, Bush has a 20% approval rating, and Obama's election is even in doubt?

I'm not sure what it says about Obama, but I'm pretty sure I know what it ways about Americans.

that is, "says"

I think the "warmonger" concept could be a powerful line of attack. It hits McCain where he's supposedly strongest and dovetails nicely with age and temper issues.

Iraq. $800 billion spent. Thousands maimed and killed.

And now McCain: shaky grasp of facts, an outdated cold war mentality, a famously out of control temper. -- Are these the qualities America needs in its next president? This isn't exactly right but there could be something here. We need to be saying McCain is dangerous and does not have the character to handle our nation's security.

We also need to hit hard on the "maverick" bullshit, over and over again. Flipflopper, in bed with lobbyists, dirty campaigner, willing to say and do anything to get elected.

Attack McCain on security and "maverick"ness. Present the alternative: restored honor, new directions, a new vision. Health care. Alternative fuels. An economy that works for the middle class again.

Repeat ad infinitum. Beginning now. Please.

affirmative action candidate

Legacy action enabled W. Bush to attend Yale and McDodo to attend Annapolis. Crony action saved W. Bush from his failed oil business and McDodo from his USS Forestall criminal negligence. Privilege action is the reason these two failures think they deserved to become president.

Calling him an old, short fused, self righteous, pandering POW is impugning a POW!
The press has informed me many times that the POW status trumps all criticisms so what else ya got?

Second verse, same as the first:

McC was an officer for 23 years, yet the Navy never entrusted him with a sea command, or command of a combat-ready unit.

He left the Navy for a political career after being told repeatedly he would never be an admiral.

The Navy knew McC inside out, and saw him as unfit to lead. Why should voters see him differently?

Zathras: Excellent points!

I've thought all along that this election is about Bush, his policies, and his administration's method of operating. Rejection of all that is bipartisan and intense.

Eight years of Bush have been so bad that Obama gets huge support just for not being Bush. Except that his credentials (if not his politics) aren't much more impressive than Bush's in 2000.

We could elect a potted plant, and come out ahead. But, I would dearly like to cast an enthusiastic vote FOR a candidate than against one.

John McCain doesn't have any new ideas, but neither does Obama. He echoes the Bush message of "just trust us." Vaporware. If he would devote a very solid two weeks making speeches (with specifics) exclusively on health care, for example, the McCain cheap shots would be pushed aside by the public debate of a real issue that matters to voters.

But Democrats don't do silly things like that. They get sucker-punched by Republicans, whine, and shoot their feet off just in time to lose.

Gore should have beaten Bush in a landslide in 2000. Kerry should have won a landslide in 2004. Obama is turning a runaway into a dangerously close election.

Meanwhile, Democrats are formulating innovative new ways to self-destruct. Attack McCain for being old! Great idea! Hell, only Republicans are old! So, what if older people consistently vote? Piss 'em off! Who needs 'em! Defend women and minorities to the death -- unless they're OLD! Can we lose this election by demonstrating sheer arrogance and disdain? Yes, we can!

I disagree with Kevin on this. I would not vote for Obama over McCain based on Kevin's list. To me, the reasons for not voting for McCain are the same reasons for not voting for Romney, or Huckabee, or Giuliani had one of them been the Republican nominee.

McCain means a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush, and that is the only reason to vote for Obama over McCain.

To repeat what I posted in another blog, Democrats should start raising questions about McCain's POW days.

Unseemly, you say? Why? I remember many a pundit explaining to us rubes that Kerry brought the swiftboating attacks upon himself because he made his Vietnam service an issue. Shouldn't McCain's war record now be an issue? Every chance he gets he has to mention it. His spokesperson got offended that anyone could question McCain's Saddleback "cone of silence" lies because he was, you know, "a former prisoner of war." Do the American people know, for instance, about his collaboration with the Vietcong in producing anti-American propaganda videos? Sure, sure, we progressives are so mature and empathic that we can appreciate that anyone who's being tortured will do anything he is asked to do. But it's still legitimate to point out that McCain did not put "Country First" during his captivity.

I remember in 1988 when a WWII vet came forth to state that Bush the First's war record was not as beautiful as we were led to believe. Before the Bushies even had a chance to pounce, Dukakis himself dismissed the vet's comments in no uncertain terms as beneath contempt. That's the same Dukakis who was savaged by Bush the First as being an un-American swarthy socialist who encouraged black criminals to rape white women.

I don't want Obama or his surrogates to lie. But there should be no issue that's verboten. Instead, Wes Clark has been banished by Obama for merely mentioning McCain's captivity while not genuflecting at the same time.

Rove has taught us all that the best way to attack an opponent is to take his biggest perceived advantage and make it into a distinct disadvantage. McCain claims the presidency as his rightful reward for having suffered for us as a former prisoner of war. It's only apt and proper to examine those years. Let's see what fellow POWs have to say, perhaps track down his captors for a Nightline Special.

____________________________________________

This is interesting about how McCain may have had special advantage at Saddleback when hearing Rick Warren's questions, then his people denied it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/nyt-backs-up-nbc-mccain-w_n_119476.html

Another thing to bring up and show about McCain/Campaign's lack of honesty.

PS: Have fun reminding your conservative friends (?) of all the putdowns they made of McCain before he was official rehabilitated to be the Repug front runner.

Bob Westal, see fivethirtyeight.com:

"Although Barack Obama remains a slight favorite in this election, his position is more vulnerable than at any point since the primaries concluded, and he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before."

Kevin, you don't do "attack" very well, do you? McCain is clearly a war-monger and will have us in a state of perpetual conflict, if not WWIII, from the second he takes office. He loves war - it's all he knows. This is a major negative to anyone who has children. They don't want war. Being childless is evidently a very large blind spot for you.

McCain is "self-righteous"? Name me one politician who isn't! Sheesh....

Aris,

The Swift Boat attacks on Sen. Kerry were effective only because they were brought by his fellow officers and enlisted men who couldn't stomach the thought of President Kerry.

If you can find some fellow POWs who have similar stories to tell about Sen. McCain, well, that would be pretty damn effective.

But unless you can get whoever fabricated the phony story about President Bush and his national guard service to come up with another fabrication smearing Sen. McCain, I think you're out of luck.

That's right Kevin. Because running an ugly, smear based campaign is just really beyond the pale. Good thing you are here to remind us about the issues voters care about most. Posted by: Brad

Brad, approximately 50% of those people who voted in the last two presidential campaigns voted for Shrub, perhaps the worst president the nation has ever had. The American public has proven since the late 1990s that substance is just too hard. So, to save us from yet another four years of shit-for-brains fuck-the-poor destroy the environment shoot-now-ask-questions-later Rethug mismanagement, it might, unfortunately, require pointing out to the mostly brain dead American public some of McCain's most obvious and important shortcomings. I agree that stops short of a 527 ad calling him bad name, but otherwise . . .

Every salesperson in the world has been sent packing from his manager's office with the instructions "You control the sale, don't let it control you." Obama in every sense of the word is selling himself to the electorate, as are most politicians. By casting himself as an agent of change he puts himself in the category of a new brand. We've had Republicans for 8 years in the White House, now he wants us to switch brands. Pepsi to Coke, a tough switch to pull off. If you walk into a business that's used the same vendor for something for 8 years, even if they're unhappy with them, you have to control the sale. They may be ready for change, just not for you. You make them want you. If Obama was in my manager's office whining about how he couldn't get his pitch across he'd be lectured to "CONTROL THE GODDAMNED SALE!" If he complained another company's salesman wasn't playing fair, making promises he knew that company couldn't keep, slandering us to boot, he'd be told "CONTROL THE GODDAMNED SALE!" This guy graduated Harvard Law?

McCains wants to send your children to war. Tell every American parent.

Instead, why not concentrate on character critiques that have some real grounding in reality? Just to give a few examples:

McCain is old and gets confused occasionally.
McCain is running an ugly, smear-based campaign.
McCain has a legendarily short fuse.
McCain is annoyingly self-righteous.
McCain's straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes.

4 out of those 5 ain't bad, but hammering McCain because he's old & confuses easily is a really, really bad idea. No, clearly, voters shouldn't want a president who confuses easily, but it's incredibly risky to attribute his confusion to old age. First, it's mean-spirited. (And spare me the counter arguments about Republican mean-spiritedness. I know, I know. But that's what they do, and, like it or not, it's perfectly okay with the general public when they do it.) Second, there's a healthy number of older voters out there to whom Obama should be able to appeal, but attacking McCain because of his age is one surefire way of alienating them & unnecessarily fostering their resentment. Strip the issue of age from critiques of McCain and make it strictly about competence & judgment. These are perfectly legitimate issues, and the only folks you risk alienating are the incompetent with poor judgment. They'll never vote for a Democrat, anyway.

Reading the Comments, I see several others -- in one way or another -- would like to Obama focus more thoroughly on issues that voters care about, and make the case that his approach to them will benefit the voter more than McCain's approach. To me, that's the most effective "attack" he can make.

The cardinal rule of sales -- persuasion -- is that simply attacking a competing product doesn't sell yours. You have to have a good product and believe in it. You have to "bring it home," show the "voter" how your ideas will directly benefit him/her.

Prospects resent "attack sales," but they are no happier with the enthusiasm of, "You don't want to buy one of these things, do you?"

This country just can't afford to ignore the issues of health care, energy, and a failing economy any longer. It's Obama's chance to be a real leader -- even before the election.

I think your best bet is laying out in detail Obama's policies. The trouble with that is I don't think there is any there, there. The spamming of anti-Obama blogs and that sort of crude attack will not work. If you can find a POW that will attack McCain like the swiftboat skippers did Kerry, go for it. I think that's another dead end. You may get lucky and see McCain make an obvious blunder. Aside from that, I think you've got a problem.

Hiding Obama's past associations won't do it either.

DBL: If you can find some fellow POWs who have similar stories to tell about Sen. McCain, well, that would be pretty damn effective.

You're not kidding, are you? Just Google something like "mccain pow traitor" and you'll get a ton of links to sites and Youtube videos by fellow Vietnam POWs and Vets that hate McCain's guts and call him a traitor in no uncertain terms. And yes, they do it using their own names and their VET credentials; and yes, many are actually conservative Republicans; and yes, some are actually well-known -- or notorious, like Bob Dornan, who may be insane but makes one hell of a convincing McCain critic and was an USAF captain. Hell, there's a whole MIA group that hates McCain and questions his POW "career" every chance they get.

Are these unimpeachable sources? Are they really onto something? I have no idea. There's certainly a fair number of conspiracy theory lunatics who think McCain is literally a Manchurian Candidate. The problem is that "respectable" progressives, the mainstream media and the oh-so-gentle Obama campaign have decided a priori that that McCain's military service is above reproach or even subtle questioning. So what we will 'till November is McCain and his thugs attacking Obama as a traitorous crypto-Moslem, while McCain's potentially less than heroic military service remains unchallenged.
____________________________________________

John McCain is a deliberate liar, a career white-collar crook, and a bought-and-paid-for tool of corporate lobbyists. Just like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, he has one and only one "policy", which is to use the power of the federal government to enrich his already ultra-rich cronies and financial backers at the expense of the American people.

Steve Duncan:

Absolutely! You sound downright warlike.

The Swift Boat attacks on Sen. Kerry were effective only because they were bought by arch-conservative Texas multi-millionaire Bob Perry who couldn't stomach the thought of President Kerry.

Fixed it.

I am a Democrat, but I have to say, you're underestimating McCain. You're right, smearing him on his wife won't work. But neither will your other points: (1) On calling him too old -- Obama seemed more befuddled than he did when meeting with Rick Warren. McCain is doing fine, is a capable politician, and knows what he wants to do with the presidency--which is what scares me. (2) His campaign is no uglier than any other presidential campaign. Piously complaining about the opponent's tough tactics didn't help McCain against George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, and it won't help Obama in 2008. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. (3) MCain's short fuse is kind of appealing. Bill Clinton had one too. (4) His self-righteousness is only annoying to people who disagree with him. He states his case clearly and in morally charged language, which makes him a formidable candidate. It's an advantage, not a weakness.

But on the last point, you've got him. He's morphed into a different candidate than he used to be - not independent at all, just another institutional Republican running the country off a cliff. McCain really is running as four more years of Bush; it's a huge loser.

Please, please don't feed the echo chamber of pious outrage that blossoms online among Democrats. McCain is a very formidable candidate who is only on the defensive because of Bush's legacy. And in my judgment, he's playing fair. Obama must meet McCain directly on his own turf: He must speak clearly and in detail on matters of policy, making clear moral points, and expressing creative new solutions to problems that divide America. He must articulate a clear and inspiring new vision. So far, Obama has punted on this. He must up his game.

Brojo nailed it. Twice. Followed by penal colony.

Knock some of the shine off McCain's "biography" then pummel him for having nothing but that holey personal "story." Can't even remember WHICH team's name he used to confuse his captors? THAT's what Pittsburg means to him, when it was (according to his ghost-written book and many previous tellings) Green Bay that supplies the Packers?

I also think that pro-booze lobbying (or rather anti-anti-booze lobbying) by Mrs. McCain's business should get more play. He'd lose the entire MADD vote if they knew the extent to which Mrs. McCain is lobbying against their issues.

You may get lucky and see McCain make an obvious blunder.

Another one? Nah, the Media will ignore the next blunder also.

Hiding Obama's past associations won't do it either

Speaking of no "there" there. Besides, McCain has enough dubious associations for the both of them.

Is it negative campaigning against McCain if you're just telling the truth about him?

I keep hearing people say that it's too early for Obama to go negative. This is fantasy. If he doesn't start punching this week he's in trouble. The convention begins a week from now and the Republicans have already scheduled their ownb convention for maximum post-DNC squelch. As another post above notes, once the McCain narrative "hardens" it will be very hard to change.

The Obama primary "rope-a-dope" strategy is not going to work against the Republicans in the general election. Obama has no insurmountable lead over John McCain, as he did with Clinton. But he's approaching the process as if it's the same. To our Republican enemies, this is an all-out war. Republicans don't see Democrats as Americans. Democrats are treating the election like a policy debate, a gentleman's game.

I look at TPM and other blogs every day and I see headlines like "Obama team mapping out counter-attack" or endless commentary around the theme of "Can you believe the audacity of John McCain's team?". This is just a sample of some of the best thinkers in the blogosphere, but this vibe feels like helplessness - like being pummeled and not knowing what to do except tell the teacher.

Sometimes I worry that every level of the Democratic leadership in this country (elected, self-appointed, intellectual) is impotent in the face of true political aggression and ruthlessness. It just doesn't seem to be in the DNA.

Obama needs to draw blood very quickly and stay at it until November.

I don't know who the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain are, how credible they are, or anything else. But at a bare minimum the site includes an article by the generally respected late Col. David H. Hackworth that makes a pretty solid case that McCain may be a tough survivor but certainly no hero who put "Country First."

I wish someone could explain to me why it's unseemly to raise questions about one's military service? Why is it out of bounds?
____________________________________________

The Swift Boat attacks on Sen. Kerry were effective only because they were brought by his fellow officers and enlisted men who couldn't stomach the thought of President Kerry. If you can find some fellow POWs who have similar stories to tell about Sen. McCain, well, that would be pretty damn effective. But unless you can get whoever fabricated the phony story about President Bush and his national guard service to come up with another fabrication smearing Sen. McCain, I think you're out of luck.

Ahem.....

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

A revealing snapshot of "the real" Sen. John McCain and his ongoing love affair with leaders of communist Vietnam as contrasted to his rude, hateful treatment of families of men still missing as a result of the Vietnam War.

U.S. documents proving POW McCain seriously "collaborated" . . . listed below are 5 transcripts of approximately 20 interviews McCain gave the communists....

"CONTROL THE GODDAMNED SALE!"

Means what, exactly? Sounds like something my regional VP of Sales would yell at me if I was trying to sell a crappy product, and he or she wanted to make it somehow my fault that I couldn't generate orders.

Hiding Obama's past associations won't do it either.

That's it, Mike K. We need good soldiers like you to blow the lid off of these nefarious connections between charitable organizations & public school systems. This, though, from your link, had me weeping with laughter:

Although the library initially promised me access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, top library officials mysteriously intervened at the last minute to bar access. There followed a struggle between myself and library officials over my right to examine the documents. Although I cannot know for certain, there is reason to believe that Bill Ayers himself may have been consulted, behind the scenes, as the conflict grew.

While I'm encouraged to see Stanley Kurtz getting all Woodward & Bernstein on challenge grants, it's far more important that somebody finally threw down on those Gestapo librarians. I won't be satisfied without a cage match to the death. What can I do to help?

Aris,

Right on. This is a real organization that could undermine John McCain's biggest strength. Why ignore it? It's an opportunity. But according to our 'rules' it's unseemly - even as we lament the way our opponents are ignoring and breaking the same rules.

John McCain is an extremely reckless man.

McCain has had many phone conversations with the President of Georgia, Saakashvili. McCain's top adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a highly paid lobbyist for Georgia. T

he President of Georgia, Saakashvili ran on a campaign of annexing South Ossettia, in the same manner as the President of Serbia, Milisovic did with Kosovo. McCain is ignorant of recent history.

McCain is either a patsy, a fool or a calculating extremist warmonger willing to practice brinksmanship.

Between these three characters, a major land war has been started on the Russian border.

McCain and Scheunemann are not bright enough to see the consequences of tying their careers to a maniac like the President of Georgia, who attacked and flattened the capitol city of S. Ossetia, a small territory that wants independence from Georgia.

McCain and Scheunemann failed to warn the President of Georgia to "stand down."

This shows a great "lack of experience" on McCain's part.

McCain and Scheunemann have "recklessly endangered" all our lives in cheering-on a border war against a mighty nuclear power.

This is EXTREMISM, plain and simple.

Don't make it about McCain -- make it about the Republican party, which had no scruples about foisting a belligerent moron on the nation in 2000 and 2004 so they could loot the treasury. McCain is an ELDERLY belligerent moron and that's the only difference. Do you want a president who can actually run the country or a front-man for more and bigger Republican corruption?

Thanks, junebug. I'll do what can, which isn't much but I did read the Corsi book and compared it to the Obama rebuttal pdf file. My review should be up on Amazon whenever they get it out of the hands of the minimum wage Obamabots there. The same ones who defaced the cover of the swiftboat book in 2004.

None but the first has any real chance of working. His advanced age is a definite issue that a lot of undecided voters might respond to. The rest won't change minds, but might up Obama's turnout.

Attack ads are best administered with a healthy dose of humor. The first lends itself to humorous attack ads, but I have a hard time envisioning such pro-Obama ads for the rest of these character traits- maybe the self-righteousness (McCain's people definitely found a way to tackle that one themselves, now that I think about it).

Someone named John Sidney McCain III has no business calling someone else an elitist.

I happen to think that the "warmonger" line of attack is pretty effective and the single biggest reason why he shouldn't be president. When I mention it to people, however, they tend to be incredulous for some reason. It's just not that well-known about him. Anyone have a good article or link that I can send to these people that runs down exactly why his foreign policy history is always pro-war and always dangerous?

Let me expound a little on why I think that Kevin is on the wrong track. If the election is about which candidate is more admirable, then Obama will lose. Not because Obama is a bad person, but because the Republicans are just better at this game than Democrats. They'll make McCain a war hero, a maverick, someone with experience, someone who can reach across the aisle, someone who can stand up to America's enemies. They'll swift-boat Obama to make him into a drug user, a radical black activist, a closet muslim, an America-hater. Whatever. The Republican noise machine knows how to manipulate public perceptions about politicians.

To me, the winning strategy for Obama is not to make the election a referendum on character, but to make it a referendum on Republican rule. If you like what the Republicans have done with/to the country, then vote McCain. If you think that they led America in the wrong direction, vote Obama. Force McCain either to defend the Bush administration's misrule (which is a hopeless task), or to reject his own party.

*

Anyone have a good article or link that I can send to these people that runs down exactly why his foreign policy history is always pro-war and always dangerous?

Here is a place to start, nameless commenter.

Howzabout "Songbird" McCain?

If you can find some fellow POWs who have similar stories to tell about Sen. McCain, well, that would be pretty damn effective. Posted by: DBL

I think this will do.

The watch

"Anyone have a good article or link that I can send to these people that runs down exactly why his foreign policy history is always pro-war and always dangerous?

Here is a place to start, nameless commenter."

Thanks, Blue Girl, love your site and your postings here, btw, but I'm looking for something that paints the whole picture, not just one isolated event. Something from Kosovo, through 9/11, through Iraq, through Iran, etc... Anything like that?
(I feel like the scene in Annie Hall when Woody Allen is listening to the obnoxious TV host go into minute detail about exactly the kind of joke he is looking for.... Me being the obnoxious guy, of course)

John McCain's defense policy: enrich his ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the arms corporations and military contractors at the expense of the American people.

John McCain's energy policy: enrich his ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the fossil fuel and nuclear corporations at the expense of the American people.

John McCain's health-care policy: enrich his ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations at the expense of the American people.

John McCain's tax policy: enrich his ultra-rich cronies and financial backers throughout the corporate ruling class at the expense of the American people.

John McCain only has one policy, which he applies to each and every issue.

McCain's straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes.

Kevin, that may be true and even sound true, but that's a dumb idea for a campaign attack. The evangelicals don't really trust McCain and Obama is making inroads with them. Why do you want to turn them over on a silver platter to McCain's camp and drive up their turnout?

Also, I'm curious. When you write "McCain's straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes," do you view that as a) not true or b) not sounding true?

This is interesting about why Obama is having trouble staying ahead of McCain, c.f. Lovitz as Dukakis on SNL:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/18/1272361.aspx

Simple critique of McCain:

Do the American people want to elect an adulterous, financially dishonest, incompetent version of George W Bush who has lied about his Christianity in front of a pastor at a public forum? If so, vote McCain! That's got teeth, it's all true, and McCain doesn't benefit remotely from discussing any of it.

Jeff II: "to save us from yet another four years of shit-for-brains fuck-the-poor destroy the environment shoot-now-ask-questions-later Rethug mismanagement, it might, unfortunately, require pointing out to the mostly brain dead American public some of McCain's most obvious and important shortcomings."

Yet another poll finds that Americans are grossly ignorant.

"Overall, 18% of the public is able to correctly answer all three political knowledge questions, while a third (33%) do not know the answer to any of the questions."

These are the folks who are supporting John McCain. They voted for GWB in 2004, and they still haven't learned. Though burnt, they don't really want to learn.

McCain ads right now are working on three lines of implicit reasoning--first, they are trying to make voters feel unsafe with Obama (celebrity, young, black); second, they are trying to buttress McCains strengths against Obama (war hero, patriot, experience, white;) and third, they are trying to minimize his association with the evil bastards who have screwed the US over the past 8 years (a maverick, he knows what is wrong in Washington.)

In cases like these, where the population is not only ignorant but eager to be remain ignorant, the best strategy will be implicit fear appeals, disgust and tapping into our keen intuition of being cheated. This means emotional conditioning--associate John McCain with George Bush, associate him with pictures of dead soldiers, Katrina, disease; associate him with lying and corruption. Associate him with cheating.

"Who is John McCain? (quick, almost subliminal images of dead soldiers, McC embracing GWB, guns, bombs, desert, rotting food) He claims to be a maverick, but can you trust him? (images of old men with really young girls, explosions, weeping women.) A maverick? Don't be fooled. John McCain embraces all the Republican policies that have weakened the US over the past eight years. Do you really want more of the same? (McCain with Bush, Osama bin Laden. Saddam. Torture.Katrina, dead Americans, 9/11.)

The impact won't be the words, but the visuals.

I agree that Obama ought to do this. If Hillary did it, of course, it would be inexcusably sleazy. I especially like the intimation by one poster above (which is entirely false, of course) that Sen. McCain was somehow responsible for the USS Forrestal fire that killed over 130 sailors, as opposed to a casualty who was nearly killed by it himself. Stay classy, Washington Monthly! Way to go post-partisanship!

The narrative about John McCain as a "maverick war hero" is too deeply ingrained in the public psyche for the Obama campaign to successfully challenge it without looking like they're "questioning his patriotism". I know, IOKIYAR, but that's the reality Democrats have to deal with. As a number of people upthread have already noted, he problem with McCain is that he's a conservative Republican with Dick Cheney's foreign policy instincts and who votes with Bush 90% of the time. If you think things are great, by all means vote McSame. If you think we need a change, you have to vote Obama. Run that line over and over and over again.

Ezra Klein shows how it's done with the attack Kevin doesn't like for some reason.

I especially like the intimation by one poster above (which is entirely false, of course) that Sen. McCain was somehow responsible for the USS Forrestal fire that killed over 130 sailors, as opposed to a casualty who was nearly killed by it himself.

What makes you so sure he wasn't responsible? He was a notorious cock-up and hot-dog, and he had a history of fucking with the pilot following him and pulling that "wet start" stunt. I know more than a few Navy veterans who served on the Forestall who wouldn't piss on him if he was aflame.

Dana Singister raises some questions Kevin ignores. McCain's position on an entire range of women's issues is simply abysmal.

Who is Dana Singister? She is the Obama's Senior Advisor for the Women’s Vote. If you want to read more I think you can find her memo at Obama's website. You can for sure find it at the blog at http://jacksoncountydemocraticcommittee.org/

Cindy McCain is not the ONLY daughter of Mr. Hensley. (So much for truth in advertising.)
NPRs All Things Considered (this evening)

Well, "Unsigned" (don't blame you, by the way, tough guy!), how about the official Navy investagatory report for one? I was among those outraged when G.O.P. political hacks slandered Max Cleland, an American patriot, and the circumstances surrounding his war injuries. How is what you're doing any different? I think its possible to not vote for McCain and still refrain from that type of slander. But, by all means. You go ahead.

Well Pat, his father was the Admiral over the Pacific Fleet. There are a lot of Navy vets from that era who have utter contempt for the investigation that followed, claiming that the goal was not to find the truth but to exonerate the admirals boy.

What happened to Cleland was beyond the pale, I agree. But it doesn't mean that all questions about the service of veterans seeking office are off limits.

How about a reprise of the famous anti-Goldwater, nuke bomb ad, showing that McCain, at various points, wants to go to war with Iran, Iraq, Russia, Korea, Antartica (?). Punchline being: is there any country John McCain doesn't want to start a war with?

Image of McCain in his man-hug with Bush..."Washington is broken and John McCain is the real maverick who can lead us out of this mess"...graphic of McCains 95% - 100% support of Bush bills.

"John McCain is ready to lead as commander in chief"...clip of, "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran". Or, video of another 100 years of occupation.

"John McCain is ready to lead on foreign policy"...clip of Shia/Sunni mistake, or mention of Iraq/Pakistan border.

"John McCain is ready to lead on the economy". Is there video of McCain's admission he doesn't know that much about the economy?

"John McCain, he's ready to lead all right, in all the wrong directions".

Gotta hit him in his supposed strengths...take a page from the Republican playbook and do it now.

You confused old people are no good!
You confused old people are no good!
You confused old people are no good!
You confused old people are no good!
You confused old people are no good!

How does this get more votes?

According to this web site, McCain *was* involved in the Forrestal fire. McCain was supposedly in the jet from which five Zuni rockets popped off, but they don't have lots of documentation right there. You can google around for lots of other scoop on it.

http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and_the_uss_forresta.htm

Want a former POW who thinks McCain shouldn't be president? Try this:

http://www.searchbling.net/?c=90&q=McCain+POW+Philip

Philip Butler was a POW 2 and one half years LONGER than McCain. Butler went through a MUCH WORSE experience than McCain. Butler knows what a dangerous hothead McCain is.

Butler is appalled by McCain's support for the Iraq disaster. In short, Butler tears St. John a well-deserved new one, and it's a great thing to read--and pass on to everyone you know.

BTW, Butler says that MANY POWs were offered early release and EVERYONE refused it. McCain was not exceptional in doing so.

But for me, the money quote is here:

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

You "No Handle Yet" are a pathetic coward (that's a nice word for chicken-s, by the way.) The investigation clearly stated it was a fault in the design of the Phantom aircraft, and perhaps not even in the specific plane McCain was in. Now, in unsigned posts here you claim McCain KILLED 130 PEOPLE, and when called on your bullshit, you respond by intimating his dad covered it up, someway, somehow, and hey, who knows, after all? You should change your name to "No Balls Yet."

How about a reprise of the famous anti-Goldwater, nuke bomb ad,...........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmmm, not sure that'd dissuade McCain voters, or much of the rest of the electorate. Bloodthirsty lot of them would likely press the button themselves given a list of several countries they could vent their anger towards. Warmongering has proven a reliable draw.

Wikipedia has this to say about the Forrestal fire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire.
It was per Wikipedia either McCain or another guy, from whose jet the rockets fired.

About 10:50 (local time) on the 29th, while preparations for a second strike were being made near 19°9′5″N, 107°23′5″E,[3] an unguided 5-inch Mk-32 "Zuni" rocket, one of four contained in a LAU-10 underwing rocket pod mounted on a F-4 Phantom II, was accidentally fired due to an electrical power surge during the switch from external power to internal power.
A drawing of the stern of Forrestal showing the spotting of aircraft at the time. Likely source of the Zuni was F-4 No. 110. White's and McCain's aircraft are in the right hand circle.

Now, in unsigned posts here you claim McCain KILLED 130 PEOPLE, and when called on your bullshit, you respond by intimating his dad covered it up...

I made two comments, and in neither one did I level any accusations. I said that there are people I have spoken with who were actually there who espouse those beliefs.

But reading comprehension isn't really your long suit, is it?

I'm weirded out by how many comments here are focused on finding the right campaign tactics to use to demonize McCain and make him into some sort of cartoon. Isn't that the sort of cheap stuff the Republicans use when they know they can't win on the issues? It won't work with McCain. People already know him, because he's been on TV every other day for twenty years.

Voters deserve something less cynical: a Democratic candidate who says what he believes. If we would just dare to use this devastatingly simple tactic, we might actually win. (See 1992 election.)

Yes, Neil. The a rocket discharged due to a systemic failure in the design of the F-4 Phantom. From either McCain's plane or another. Exactly as I said above. Which is a hell of a lot different from McCain killing 130 people. But I guess some people here aren't satisfied with just voting against the Senator or supporting his opponent. They (like Karl Rove) have to lie to smear him as well.

According to http://milfuegos.blogspot.com/2006/01/navy-records-on-uss-forrestal-incident.html, it wasn't so much whether McCain was in the plane when the Zuni rockets went off that mattered, but that McCain had opposed stopping the use of dangerous M-65 1000-lb. bombs manufactured in 1935. When one or more of those bombs slipped from a jet's wing (more or less) that set off Zuni rockets from either McCain or White's jet. So McCain's big problem there seems to be his judgment call, not the direct physical involvement with the incident.

BTW, that site suggests that McCain's fawning attitude about BushCo despite their vile treatment of him stems from their having access to damaging records of this incident. Well, *they* sure as hell are willing to "smear" a "war hero" despite their prattlings about patriotism and honoring our military, etc. ad nauseum

As a Navy pilot McCain lost five planes in nine years of service. And he thinks this qualifies him to be Commander in Chief? Stop him before he does to his country, what he did to his planes.

Is John McCain an unrepentant warmonger who wants to cut taxes so his beer heiress wife can take home a few more dollars per year?

A more believeable way of putting it is, he's a racist who believes in the plutocratic system. He's public-spirited in a psychotic sort of way, and he likes the security, acclaim and sense of achievement he gets from fighting effectively for his little cause.

Calling Cleland a traitor had no basis in reality. Calling John McCain a spoiled navy brat whose fuck ups were protected by his admiral father is an opinion based on events.

Oh, no, YOU didn't make the bogus charge, some guys YOU TALKED WITH did. That's different. Spine isn't your long suit, is it?

Kevin wrote:

Beats me. But as a campaign attack tactic, it ain't gonna work.

I disagree much. I think we can be more persuasive and substantive by using my description in my 5:33 PM comment instead of by solely using your suggested lines.

A more believeable way of putting it is, he's a racist who believes in the plutocratic system. He's public-spirited in a psychotic sort of way, and he likes the security, acclaim and sense of achievement he gets from fighting effectively for his little cause.

He probably doesn't mind if being president ups his chances of becoming hugely rich and influential, either.

The attempts to smear McCain, either with the Forrestal fire or the allegations about his POW experience, might read this first. That is a good way to bring lots of attention you may not want. There are a lot of young people whose memory of Vietnam is near zero. Kerry did a really stupid thing by bringing up his anti-war activities in 2004.

Now you want to make an issue of McCain's POW time. I agree that being a POW is not job training for president but it is your candidate who is running an image campaign. If Obama wants to run on his character instead of his experience, don't be surprised to find McCain responding with these character points. You will just be helping him by making these intemperate accusations.

They weren't just people I talked with, Pat. They were the old timers who were nearing retirement who trained my young ass in 1980.

Just to clarify, I think Kevin's suggested points about McCain are alright, but the most devastating critique of him is the one Kevin seems to be trying to kick under the rug so we won't see it-- that McCain doesn't really care about regular people. I think it's important not to come across as if all we have to say against him are that he has a few character foibles. If we overdo that, then we may make ourselves look real bad in the eyes of ignorant people who will for no other reason start wondering if McCain's policies are really the wiser ones.

Hi All,

I am writing to ask if any of you would be willing to participate in a study that I am conducting as part of my PhD research. I am interested in examining the ways in which blog users participate in political discourse.

You can contribute to this study by participating in an email interview. The interview questions will ask you about how you argue with, persuade, challenge, or support each other politically; the ways in which you analyze, critique, or support candidates and their campaigns; the features/options you desire from political blogs; and the role that technologies such as blogs and websites play in civic processes, specifically a presidential election.

If you are interested in participating, please email me at dadasce@muohio.edu

Thanks,
Caroline

Pat, Mike K: From the various sources I've looked at and the different stories that have been told, there is "controversy" over just what happened in the Forrestal fire - I sure don't know why it happened or who could be blamed. But by the same token, you don't know for sure (?) what happened either and therefore have no basis for calling questions or claims about McCain's involvement "smears" or making fun of whoever for repeating stories he heard about the incident. In any case, McCain logged lots of negative assessment (both formal and informal) during his military years, to go with anything admirable he also did or went through.

Mike K wrote: "... it is your candidate who is running an image campaign."

You are really quite the clown. McCain is the candidate running an "image campaign". It's the only kind of campaign you can run, when your entire political career is that of a career white-collar crook, a bought-and-paid-for tool of corporate lobbyists who has spent decades fattening himself on bribes, shilling for whatever corporate interests will pay you off to do their bidding, and every single one of your policy proposals boils down to ripping off the American people to enrich your ultra-rich cronies and financial backers.

The substance of John McCain is that he's a crook.

That's why the only campaign McCain can run is based entirely on manufacturing bogus images of Obama based on racism and fear, and an equally bogus image of the career white-collar crook McCain as "mavericky independent blah blah blah".

That's why the McCain campaign is wallowing deep in the gutter of racism and other sickening hatefulness, and is going to wallow deeper and deeper in that gutter right up to election day