I have no doubts that John McCain will be a formidible candidate, but, as usual, Republicans can't see the big picture. They're old, arrogant bereft of any ideas, and more interested in maintaining division than actually working for the common good of the nation. If that's all they got against Obama, President-Elect Obama will be making his victory speech very early on Election Night.

So basically they're going to run a repeat of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Good luck with that.

I'm not sure what issues they can be confident on. McCain is out of step with the American people on every major issue.

It looks like they're hoping to get disillusioned Obama-hating Clinton supporters to go with McCain, doesn't it? Can't wait to see MyDD turn into a pro-McCain site after the convention.

Bill Clinton as the chief strategist for the RNC? Maybe this will work better for McCain than it did for Hillary...

I guess Mark Penn landed on his feet after all. Good for him!

How odd, this thread is about potential Republican attacks against Obama, and yet 75% of the posts are about how much the poster hates Hillary. Revealing.

Yes, I agree with those who are not particularly impressed or frightened by the Republican strategy. I wonder, though, if this represents only the first of a two pronged strategy, the second half of which would rely on PAC and 527 groups to smear Obama's time overseas (i.e. he's a Muslim), his membership in a Black Church (i.e. he's a racist), his purchase of land from Rezko's wife (i.e. he's corrupt). So, basically, you distract voters and put Obama on the defensive with a whole bunch of this stuff, and then you present your guy, McCain, as a normal, everyday, "issues-oriented" American hero.

1) is easily overcome by Obama, he's already done it.

2) is a non-issue and easily explained as such.

3) "experience and wonkery versus change" doesn't seem to be working very well thus far...

4) essentially (1). very easily circumvented, he's been doing it since the campaign started.

wow, the much vaunted Republican Attack Machine looks nearly as lame as the much vaunted Clinton Machine. they cannot win against Obama with this game plan in the fall.

Rejection by large numbers of Democrats of a Hillary or Obama nomination was the major risk, and I believe, the result of the Bush-Rove-style mean-spirited, divisive, destructive Clinton campaign.

That said, I also believe that ending the Bush-Clinton decades-long domination of our government is the most important challenge facing the nation in 2008. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Obama (as I would have been for any of the other Democratic candidates). But I can never vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Like I've said from the beginning, Hillary's attacks against Obama were basically handing over ammo to the Republicans, whereas Obama's attacks against Hillary couldn't be used against her in the general election (she is still a better agent of change than McCain).

Hillary of course didn't care that she has spent months trashing the possible nominee from her own party, because she doesn't care at all about the party, or anything else for that matter, except her own power.

Luckily Obama can handle this, so I'm not worried. I'm just pissed at how despicable and short sighted Hillary is. But hey, she has been borrowing talking points and tactics from the Republicans the whole campaign, it is only fitting that they would borrow back.

This is, of course, no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The Republicans have only one strategy and that is to beat whoever the nominee is. They don't care about building a platform that means anything because their's doesn't. They will degrade the campaign to any point no matter how low in order to win. If anyone doubt thia all they need do is look at the record of the past 12 Presidential campaigns. It's quite clear.

It is of little consequence and is foolishly naive to think that because Hillary has brought up some of Obama's obvious weaknesses and vulnerabilities as a candidate that the GOP is lifting them from her. I don't support her, but she isn't to blame for that. If anyone is to blame for these vulnerabilities it is Obama himself. And the vulnerabilities mentioned in this post are not the only targets the Republicans will aim for. There are plenty of others---most of which have been off limits during the primaries because the Democrats are not nearly as foul as the Republicans when they are in a contest. What is clear is that while Obama is unsettling to them, he is also a big, fat, juicy target and they are happy to have a go at him in the fall.

Reducing Democratic choices down to two centrist, corporate Democrats like Obama and Clinton was a massive strategic error. The Republicans know it. It's just a pity most Democrats don't realize what they have allowed to happen. We had a chance to have a thundering landslide of a victory in November for Democrats running for the White House on down to dog catcher and we've blown it. Now we have to run with yet another corporate Dem leading us to more stalemate, more "compromise" (aka defeat), and more hardship for regular Americans of all genders, races, and ages. It's a real shame.

"It's certainly not obvious how Obama responds to such attacks."

Simple, he doesn't respond to them. He lets other Democrats tear those arguments to pieces. Meanwhile, he wages his own campaign.

Responding to Republican attacks is simply playing into their campaign strategy. It's letting your political enemies determine your own campaign. It's a trap.

Barack Obama is a great campaigner with a great message. What he needs to do is just what he's done during the primary, wage his own campaign his own way. He won't ignore the Republican attacks, of course, but there are plenty of Democratic attack dogs available, if necessary. But he needs to stay above all that. He needs to wage his OWN campaign, not the one Republicans will try to persuade him to follow.

There's a reason they're scared of Barack Obama. They should be!

"a President Hillary doesn't scare me nearly as much as a President Obama."

What do Republican fear most about a President Obama? It has nothing to do with foreign or domestic policy. It has to do with the fact that if Obama is elected, the GOP may not worm their way back into the White House for potentially, another 16 years.

Here's another laugh: "The Republicans "can be confident in a campaign about issues,".

Can anyone remember the last time a Republican based his/her campaign on issues? Isn't their weapon of choice always, at least since 1994, been to demonize opponents to distract voters, thus preventing voters from noticing that the Republican's position of the issues would cause voters to vote Democratic? All in all, I'd say the GOP's worst nightmare is that President Obama will force the Republican Party to adopt positions that are more in line with the will of the American people instead of the corporate and special interests the Republicans have been turning tricks for since Dwight Eisenhower.

Since we got to stare for four days at headline with McCain calling out Obama on the public funds pledge, it would be nice if this NY Times article got a little play too. Especially since the article predates by two days public funding pledge bs by McCain.

"McCain Signs Up a Bush Fund-Raising Organizer."
And the money quotes, pun intended, from the article:

Mr. McCain’s advisers said that the senator’s campaign would also be bestowing titles on its most prolific fund-raisers under an “incentive system,” with privileges for those who raised the most money.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, WOULD NOT ACCEPT PUBLIC FINANCING (emphasis mine) and spending limits for this year’s general campaign.

And

Mr. McCain’s advisers insisted that the senator was not turning his back on a campaign finance system, which bans large “soft-money” donations to the political parties, that he helped put in place. “The senator’s always been an advocate of contributions from individual Americans,” said Wayne Berman, a major McCain fund-raiser. “It’s those contributions that are supporting his presidential campaign.”

Huh.

However, I do believe that by this time most Americans have been inoculated against this crap. No one has forgotten 2000 and 2004, and swift-boating has become part of the vernacular.

Yep, it’s now part of the vernacular, especially for political junkies. But, just to take an example, how many people do you know who bought in to the swiftboating of John Kerry?

I know quite a few.

Now, how many to you know who have since seen the error of their way? How many realize or admit or care that they were fooled?
I know zero such people.

How many Hillary Haters would change their mind based upon new evidence? How many Obama Bashers would change their minds?

Yep, irrefutable talking points to assure success, especially the Commander in Chief part given the incumbent GOP president's successful record.

The GOP continues its strategy to turn Article II on its head. As defined, President is the primary role and Commander in Chief is one responsibility, albeit important, which gives him/her authority over the military, which currently has an enrollment of approx. 3 million people (including reserves, 1.5 million otherwise). They seem to forget there are 297+ million other people in this country.

McCain may have served honorably, and "lead," so he claims the largest squadron in the Navy, but that is by no means a default pass to be a qualified Commander in Chief.

This argument will fail in the general, because only 68% of the GOP's base support the current military strategy, which McCain supports. (sorry, can't cite which poll, just pulling from recent memory.) Unfortunately for them, that's not enough to dominate and guarantee the general election by any means.

And if the list presented is the best they've got, where's the beef? How much weaker can they get when "confident in a campaign about issues" is their third bullet.

Look, the attack on Obama's qualifications to be Commander in Chief is going to be infinitely more effective coming out of McCain's camp than it could ever be coming out of Hillary's.

All of the derision of Hillary's experience in foreign policy by the Obama camp is not going to be so easy to transfer to McCain.

And what will Obama say in response to the direct accusation that he's not equipped to take on the role of CIC? I have no idea.

the groundwork for the swiftboating of obama will be done with hte uncontested repetition of the talk radio monopoly. if obamans or clinto supporters really want to defend their candidates they may want to exercise their free speech rights by waving signs at the local center of GOP power- the local right wing talk radio station.

doing so will help progressives recognize where thte invisible body blows are coming from and may get the local media attention needed to correct the inevitable distortions and lies.

if, as usual, progressives ignore the talk radio factor it will again count for many millions of votes around the country being cast in ignorance. one local loudmouth reading GOP and chamber of commerce talking points can undo the work of thousands of volunteer citizens working for causes and candidates.

the talk radio disparity, enabled by reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine, may be the single most imortant factor why we are in this bush disaster now.

the spat between limbaugh and mccain will not interfere with the swiftboating and distorting, always the main function of the GOP radio monopoly.

Is this video about Obama true??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY&eurl=http:%2F%2Fwww.anorak.co.uk%2Fpoliticians%2F179725.html

I just recently saw it. Is it a republican smear?
If its true, and there is talk that he's taken a polygraph to prove its truth, then I don't see how Obama can be elected. A pres. who did something like this would definately be a little more change than anyone counted on!

Guy

Speaking about tired-out memes, that one has a lot of mileage under the hood! If you want substantive policy positions, you could try listening carefully to some of his longer speeches, or you could just go to his web-site.

BH,

My point isn't that Obama doesn't have substantive policy positions, but that it is awfully difficult for the average voter to know what they are. Most voters do not sit through long speeches or dig through campaign websites. They maybe see a few big speeches, and the rest of their info comes from news clips and Leno quips.

Think about the big Obama speeches that have been broadcast. The 2004 convention - if memory serves (and my point is all about the memories that linger after a speech), the speech was long on inspiration and short on policy. The Iowa victory speech, the bye-bye New Hampshire speech - those were all hope and change. How much more do you expect people to sit through? "Record" coverage for a Democratic debate is only 5 million viewers, while about 120 million Americans voted in the last presidential election. So even if Obama is actually serving policy inside a warm hope sandwich, the question is what impression remains. And the impression from soundbites, commentators, and the comedy shows is heading toward him being a policy lightweight preaching in a revival tent. No matter what is buried deep in Obama.com, this is the meme that is being planted, and which is starting to take root.

Billy Glad: I know that, TPC. I was just making the point how hard it is going to be for Obama to deal with this issue. One little botched joke finished John Kerry's bid to represent the Party this year.

Actually, I believe Kerry is a perfect example of why your theory is wrong. Kerry’s long service and heroism where not enough to inoculate from slime or to make him a more appealing as CIC than the obviously incompetent Bush. McCain is a war hero as well. And those who know his story respect him. That does not mean his fit to be CIC. At the end of the day, people will vote for the same reason they voted for GWB, Clinton and Reagan.

Who do you want in your living room for the next 8 years? A long resume, is not going to get Hillary into the white house, nor is it going to get McCain into the white house.

Also I would add, that we are seeing a sea change in progress in the Military. After Vietnam, republicans essentially owned the Military Vote. George Bush has done everything imaginable to undo the strangle hold republicans have had on these people. Obama would seal the deal. Tell me? What percent of the Military is Black?