i've certainly read things in the past that lend credence to this claim, but, this could backfire and make john mccain look "fiery" and "energetic" for a 72 year old man.

(greg- do you mean "at a time when McCain has shown no such reticence with regard to Obama"?)

Wait, so this election is about whether or not the experiment will work??

Obama's response to the 25,000 dead in Georgia was to take a swim in Hawaii.

He should have cut his $100,000 vacation short and returned to work.

Time to dust off the daisey ad. Bring out the big guns. Paint mcbush like goldwater. Mcbush wants to live in the 60's, let's take him there. 3 . . . 2 . . . . 1 MUSHROOM CLOUD.

Obama needs to get thing charge boiled down to a neat one sentence soundbyte. I say this offered up by a commenter over at HuffPo -

Here's the new tag for McCain. 'hysteria based foreign policy'

Say it with me -
John McCain: hysteria based foreign policy
John McCain: hysteria based foreign policy
John McCain: hysteria based foreign policy
John McCain: hysteria based foreign policy

Obama needs to show that his measured response was exactly inline with the responses of all foreign allies AND the current White House. With the underlying question being "" Do you really want somebody more to the extreme of the current White House?"

Also he has to make sure he can't be framed as being too slow to act.

this man is a militarist. that's no secret, he comes from a military family and so of course his perception is going to be viewed from a militaristic lens and every situation, EVERY situation, the first thing he'll look at is military options. the first question he'll ask is, what can the military do?

i think its a valid point and it needs to be discussed.

George Bush brought us "cowboy diplomacy". John McCain will bring us "John Wayne" interventionalism.

Is that a smart, sustainable strategy that is in the best long-term interests of America?

I don't think so. But let's have that debate, shall we?

I don't have a problem with this line of attack, as it is a real weakness of the man. It is also not a new line of concern, McCain having been roundly criticized for being and angry old man by many in his own party.

I would suggest a companion line of attack, which is to pivot to start ticking off 3 point at which his impetuosity and anger-management issues can be seen in bad decisions. All the way back to being in trouble all the time at the Academy, despite his privileged upbringing. Running around with hookers (risky behavior). He made some choices I agree with, such as campaign finance reform, but those days are long in the past and now he's bee wrong on the decision to invade Iraq, wrong on backing Georgia so quickly, and having shown that he's absolutely willing to say anything, do anything, to get elected.

That's three strikes.

Obama's got to connect the dots and show that the character issue makes McCain a dangerous choice, which he is.

McCain is like monty python's black knight: because of Iraq we have no legs to stand on or limbs to fight with but we talk a good game and can threaten Russia with a "come back here, I'll bite your legs off".

For the last time: McCain is not a hothead, his wife is just a cunt! How dare she tell him he's balding!

Of course McCain has temper issues, everyone knows this, well, everyone he has worked with.

Now he claims he has overcome these life long temper issues which begs the question; how? Is he on pyschotropic drugs? Don't we, the voters, have a right to know?

I pray there is video of McCain going all crazy on somebody. That would be amazing.

This has to be tied into the Iraq War, which is a tangible disaster that people recognize and understand in real terms - a real example of what the GOP cowboy approach to foreign policy can result in.

This has a chance to stick with the MSM since this is already a meme that the MSM has used before.

Good line and truly great argument but I'm not sure they picked the right person.

If I were McCain, I'd just laugh it off with "Susan Rice keeps seeing monsters".

They need to take this one step further and compare it with Bush's bellicosity ie "Bring it on." It is the same song, different singer.

Calling his wife (or any woman for that matter) a c**t is simply lower than the belly of slug slithering in a cesspool.

Sturgis was slightly better...LOL...

Is there any tape out there of him losing it that Obama can use?

I like "erratic" and "confrontational" -- but, mostly "erratic." That word gets to both his shifting pronouncements on Georgia, bin Laden, etc., but also on the "pick a card, any card" nature of his domestic policy positions.

Buchanan: "He(McCain) will make Cheney look like Gandhi"

Sen Cochran: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

It's risky. Obama doesn't need to persuade us, or those who already know McCain!

He needs to persuade those who watch ads and are swayed by them.

If "hot headed: is seen as passionate then it's a losing gambit.

If its seen as "rechless" or better yet "dangerous" then it might work.

It's still kinda iffy.

Nah, won't work. A pronounced majority of the electorate is of the same reckless, xenophobic shoot first mentality as McCain. 9/11 hasn't been sufficiently avenged in most people's minds and they'd all like a few minutes on the joystick of a loaded drone over anywhere a brown person is open game. America is McCain writ large. Makes you want to suck on a pistol just thinking about what we've become.

CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,CLARK,OBAMA/CLARK 08!!!!Iam GQ THA TEACHA and i approved this for Vice President!!!GENERAL.WESLEY CLARK IS THE FUCKIN MAN!!!!

My initial thought regarding this line of attack is of the LBJ 'Daisy Ad.' It is always cited as such an effective negative ad. But what was the premise of the ad? That Goldwater is so reckless and trigger happy that he will lead us into nuclear war, i.e. i'm the reasonable one acting in our national interest compared to this guy. Yet despite its supposed effectiveness a Democrat has not tried this tactic against a Republican since. Why is this? Is it because we as a nation have become far more hawkish? That without the Soviet threat voters are far more supportive of war? That following Vietnam, Democrats were so scared of seeming weak so they were afaid to do anything that reinforced those belief? This new line of attack by the Obama campaign seems the closest yet that a Democrat has come to drawing this contrast since LBJ and I think it worth attempting because a) the American public is more receptive to the message after the years of Bush adventurism and b) Democrats might as well give up trying to me-too the Republicans on hawkishness because we are again seeing with Obama, as with all Democrats, that, no matter how hawkish they try to seem, people will always associate Republicans with the hawk position (see the recent poll on how many more people trust McCain to deal with Russia). So a Democrat might as well go back to the LBJ position that "this guy is so hawkish that he is part crazy and will get us into wars that are not in our national interest." Can you imagine an Obama ad with McCain's own words about Georgia, essentially saying, "are you prepared to send your sons and daughters to possible nuclear war over Georgia? Well that is what McCain wants." It may just be more effective.

The problem is this is fighting McCain in an environment of his choosing. It's reactive. You have to change the ballgame, change the conditions. He has to be attacked on the economy, number one. He has to be attacked on his inconsistencies and his ridiculous flip-flopping, which is exponentially greater than anything Kerry ever did. Enough about the inconsistencies and you'll begin to create the impression of a craven geezer who started losing it years ago and is probably heading into full-blown Alzheimer's.

And Obama's surrogates (and we) have to be getting the message out about what a lying, unprincipled, lunatic scumbag he is.

"Won't work on the dumb Bubbas"--this is not about the dumb Bubbas. We weren't going to get them anyway. This is not about the imbeciles who aren't going to vote Obama no matter what. We aren't going to vote for McCain no matter what he does. This is about casting doubt in the minds of the people who will tilt the election one way or the other.

Well one thing is for certain: O needs to endear himslef to the press. Give them access and I think they will treat him better.

He needs to get in the thick of it and mix it up.

mccain suggested of bring back the draft.....http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/20/mccain-support-draft/

Again, be careful about debate expectations. If we go overboard pushing this theme, McCain's handlers will make anger management their number one priority in the debate prep. McCain won't be the monster the ads have been portraying, and he'll win on expectations.

Irresponsible & Unstable
They have to make McCain look irresponsible and emotionally unstable; as dangerous as Barry Goldwater was in 1964. I would hammer away on this as well as his age and memory loss. I would hint in as many ways as possible that he has Alzheimer's. McCain has a big ego, and this will enrage him. Hopefully goading him into emotional out bursts that will re-enforce the message. It will also undermine his support with older Americans. Further more, none of these things have to be made up. There are plenty examples to cite going all the way back to his time at the Naval Academy.

and here....

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/20/mccain-support-draft/

is McCain hinting that he would favor re-instituting the draft!!!!!

Right now, I like the expectations we have set up for the first debate. The media's decided that McCain hit Saddleback out of the park. Without that, they would have been setting up the first debate as a guaranteed rout by Obama. Now the expectations may not have completely reversed, but at the very least, the expectations should be around neutral.

Turning McCain into a caricature will backfire. Sure, plant seeds for the meme. But before Obama goes into blitz mode, he should try to get under McCain's skin at the first debate.

It's easy -- hell, it's even fun -- to be trigger-happy when you're safe at home, spending someone else's money and risking someone else's life.

The big test on this attack will be the response to the McCain camp rebuttal. McCain will call Obama soft and McCain will protect America, Obama CANNOT go on the defensive about being soft - he needs to keep attacking the point. McCain is an war monger who wants his own war, sings about bombing Iran, talks about being in Iraq for 100 years, seems intent on picking fight with Russia.

JOHN MCCAIN RHYMES WITH PAIN

John McCain rhymes with pain
4 more years of Bush Republican reign
yes McCain rhymes with pain
4 more years of Bush-Cheney disdain
it's true McCain rhymes with pain
4 more years to drive our soldiers insane
this time use your brain
cause John McCain stands for pain

John McCain stands for wars
countless endless the United States friendless
that's what's in store
if the Republicans win this
show them the door
it's in all of our interests
peace is the reward
all else is senseless
McCain's wars are endless
John McCain stands for warS

John McCain rhymes with rage
waiting to explode on a worldwide stage
yeah McCain rhymes with rage
bottled up inside stick you with his tire gauge
not just going through a stage
too set in his ways to turn any page
please don't rattle his cage
his mind's of another age
and John McCain rhymes with rage

John McCain's time has passed
he was a brave GI
and his memory will last
no need to ask why
but now life comes at you fast
and it's passed him by
so we thank you John
now make room for the other guy
cause John McCain rhymes with pain
how many more troops die how many go insane
John McCain rhymes with pain
it couldn't be more plain
that John McCain rhymes with pain

[Creative Commons applies:
Record it; make a video of it;
perform it; Larry Piltz, 8/9/08]

The 'hothead' theme is a great one. The only problem is:

A) Obama lacks the focus and killer instinct to really drive it home, and...

B) It may be too little too lat. McCain has already largely succeeded in re-defining himself as the more experienced and safer choice of the two.

There still might be a chance if he picks a fighter - like Hillary - to carry the message home. But all signs are that he will pick someone he's more 'comfortable' with. In other words, another milk toast politician like himself

Age is the elephant in the room isn't it? In this case, however, it is a legitimate concern.

Bang away at what HIS SUPPORTERS FEAR the most:

his age
his temper
his infidelity (crudeness)
his flip flopping
his stance on immigration
his willingness to change with the wind i.e. he's a flake

A single-pronged approach is considerably less than called for here. Here are grounds on which McCain should be attacked, simultaneously, and ferociously:

1) He is a liar with no core beliefs and only the elaborate illusion of a backbone. A great example - Andrew Sullivan's recent observations about torture, McCain's condoning thereof, the Keating 5, nearly non-stop praise of Bush, and the like.

2) He is not just a "hothead", John McCain would be, by far, the most militaristic president the United States ever elected in its history to date. Yes, MY FRIENDS, there will be "more wars". He is itching to push that button.

3) McCain = Bush, but with LESS understanding of policy in terms of economics. Phil Gramm will go from lobbying lawmakers, to writing economic policy the way the oil companies write the Bush/Cheney energy policies.

4) Targeted specifically to conservative Dems and Indies - You can't trust John McCain. Look at how many times he has drastically changed his mind about very important issues in just the last decade alone. If he is pitching something that sounds reasonable to you - clean energy, no torture, etc - DON'T buy it. If he manages to claw his way into the White House he will be sooo beholden to the far, far right wing that there is no way in hell he's going to turn around and fight for any of those causes he's trying to convince you he cares about.

5) McCain is deeply anti-woman. The rape jokes, the dessertion of his first wife, the current trophy wife as stepping-stone to power, the fact he's voted against nearly every issue/initiative important to women in his entire career that he's had a chance to. McCain was also one of those old white men that Chuck D. was talking about what he was going to do to them 'by the time he got to Arizona' - voted with white supremecist governor Evan Meacham numerous times against MLK day.

It's about time, guys. Rice is a great surrogate, too.

I'm guessing between now and Friday afternoon, the Obama campaign is seriously reconsidering Hillary Clinton as the number two for the Vice Presidency.

Obama needs to hit McCain harder. Barack Obama is the better choice and the candidate with the better judgement. Do not let John McCain tell you any differently. Obama can only win with strong supporters fighting back against McCain's twisted words.

I struggle with the theme of trigger happy. I think someone said it above, but essentially the independent voters and the folks driving the polls here really do seem to react positively to the bluster. Witness the polling data on Georgia. McCain has Obama by 9points on this topic.

My theory is that during tough times when the economy is faltering and people are essentially nervous, the bluster has a cathartic effect. (Post WWI Germany, anyone?)

This Susan Rice stuff to me isn't the stuff that's going to work. Rather, I'd prefer to see stronger, better ads that don't follow the 'more of the same' line (boring), and use the best minds in the business to create memorable, image heavy ads full of the snippets of John McCain being John McCain over the past few decades.

Obama is not branding McCain at this stage. And I think it has a lot to do with the stale political ads that are running now as he tries to stay away from the issues that would matter to people:

1. His Age
2. His Demeanor
3. His Flip-flopping

All of these have some semblance of being third rail issues that will set people off. But so did the 'celeb' ads, and as much as we hate them, they work well, because they are UNIQUE, they are assassinations, and the MSM will do nothing but blabber on about them. All the money in the world can't buy that free attention that is currently working for McCain.

"More of the same" is a line from 1994. Fire the ad agencies who are doing this stuff and hire the bombastic, guerrilla, trend-spotting scrappy agencies and let them GO TO WORK.

Then pick your damned VP NOW, so we can get off this polling/saddleback thread. TODAY.

Or just make this all easy and Pick HRC as VP (as much as I cannot stand the thought).

Ah, the life of an armchair QB :)

Ugh, I stopped reading mid-way through point #1 because I got bored. Which is exactly why your "multi-pronged" approach is not good.

Surrogates? Whereforeartthou?

The Obama folks need to play the fear card - think '64 and the Goldwater/mushroom cloud ad. McCain IS unstable, irrational, unfit to be within a mile of the red button. Obama can do it through surrogates - but the message needs to be chilling and believable.
There's enough footage of McDeath looking/acting like Dr Strangelove for this to work.

I could care less if this veers from the kumbaya mantra. The reality is that McCain may win, and if he does, the entire middle east will erupt, we'll be in a nuke showdown with Russia, the dollar will collapse, etc etc.

Americans understand fear. Let's give 'em what they want.

Subtle, creeping, smart. A well planned check and mate--can't you see it? I like that Susan Rice. She is smart, yet deadly.

Thanks you. I've been telling my colleagues for the past couple of days... call him the Warmonger. People get that. Make him irrational (and gets at age) and connect it to Iraq.

John McWarmonger, the soldier who only knows how to fight.

Kos

Not That Kos

So why is it that when McGoo attacks, the lede is always "McCain launches attack," or "McCain attacked," or "after days on the defensive, McCain vigorously counterattacked," or some such shit, but when Obama attacks, its always "Attempting to regain the initiative," or "In an apparent attempt to to regain the offensive," or "seeking to turn the focus back onto McCain" or some other similarly passive characterization? Even when the attacks are equally harsh and effective, McCain always gets the rough, tough, two fisted fightin man lede. Could we maybe leave that thing to Nedra Pickler and David Gregory and, if we want to editorialize about the perceived effectiveness or lack thereof of an attack, do so a explicitly?

forget biden,bayh,nunn,sebelius and kaine,Gen.Wesley Clark is the strongest muthaf#cka hands down,i know i gonna b gettin on some of u people nerves but u gonna b readin these blogs wit nothin but GEN.WESLEY CLARK from now until we know who his pick for V.P is gonna b, i just pray its clark.OBAMA/CLARK 08!!!!!

Obama:

"...my opponent the ex-POW, REPUBLICAN John McCain......"

This is not a character attack because its true! I doubt McCain's penchant for expletive-laden rants inside the Capitol are qualities voters want in a president and the Obama campaign should be bringing those qualities to light, especially when their own candidate is getting pummeled as an "empty celeb." This is an example of getting tough without going below the belt. Thumbs up to camp Obama.

So, should we all start building bomb shelters (like in the 1950's) just in case McCain does get elected? Or will it be too late? I have this terrible fear that Putin is planning to drop by and pay a visit on Raoul Castro next week. (Although hopefully he will wait until the following week, during the Republican convention.)

Ah, the collective Obamic meltdown. What a joyful noise.

Obama cannot win on the defense issues.
Obama cannot win on the economic issues.
Obama cannot win on the security issues.

His only hope is to challenge McCain to one-on-one winner take all B-ball to be televised nationally. Obama is Meadowlark Lemon to McCain's Curly Neal.

You know who was another hothead and media darling? Saakashvili, the soon to be ex-president of Georgia. Saakashvili's hotheadedness plunged his country into a war with Russia. Not surprising that they both share the same media advisor either, Randy Schuenmann.

You can make this effective. McCain has a reputation for being hot headed. It started in the academy when he was 894 out 899 in his class largely because he was undisciplined, hot headed and to quick to act. He crashed three jets during training. A lack of judgment. He was shot down because he ignored a lock on tone showing that his aircraft had been painted with targeting radar - you can even use his own words from his own autobiography that he was too quick to act when a calmer head would have gone evasive to avoid a missile attack. His time in the Senate and the Keating five showed more impulsive judgment. His position on Kosovo when he wanted more violence when Clark's strategy prevailed. His physical assault on a diplomat during negotiations in South America. His threats of war with Iran, Syria and now Georgia. He needs to be asked, just what do you intend to do? Nothing devalues the threats of a nation faster than bluster you can not back up.

The last point is very telling - McCain thinks that a draft is necessary - he will get us in the wars to use up those young men and women.

Yes, it will work, and it's a completely legitimate point to make. But they have to lean on it over and over and over again, and be willing to tackle some of the reckless things he did while a pilot. I think back to Chuck Schumer's first campaign for the Senate, against Alfonse D'Amato. Schumer spent plenty of time discussing the issues, but the most consistent and memorable point he made was that D'Aamato was a liar (I'm not sure whether that actual word was used, but Schumer certainly didn't pull any punches). The charge connected with a very basic character flaw, and though it took several weeks, finally D'Amato was caught in a simple-minded lie over calling Schumer a putz-head in a private session with some voters, and the whole campaign blew up in his face. It was an innocuous comment that was pretty mild for a New York election, and all he had to do was say he was sorry or even "Yeah, well you are, Chucky!" But instead he lied about it, and that was it.

The lesson here to the Obama folks is to use a weakness like that, beat it to death, and don't give any quarter to McCain when he gets all righteous about you saying that about him. It IS a two-edged sword, but it's exactly the kind of thing that needs to be done to McCain. He is reckless, he is a facile liar who can even deny to someone's face that he ever said something which he may have said twelve times the day before, and with tape rolling on all sides. Unless pressure is applied to him, he'll sail through the election as a man of upstanding character for something he did 40 years ago, and the shoddy character he is today won't be questioned at all - until he's in a White House and we're in another ten wars. Which will be too late.

And one more piece of advice to Obama and company - STOP TALKING ABOUT PROCESS!!!! STOP IT!!! If your whole campaign is based on why the way McCain runs a campaign stinks (which it does), you will definitely lose. Take a lesson from how McCain lost to GW back in 2000. GW ran a rotten, ugly, personal campaign against McCain In South Carolina and from that point on all you heard from McC was not his straight-talk message, but how rotten and mean GW was. He was, McCain is, but by gosh and by golly, that ain't the point!!!!

Oh, jeebus, I'm starting to talk like Wilford Brimley. When will this be over....

NOW we're getting somewhere.

The stories about McGoo's insane temper come from all over the political spectrum, even from his own party.

This has to be pounded so that, when the debates happen, people will be sifting through McGoo's performance for any signs of his legendary temper.

If the Obama campaign takes a few themes and pounds them over and over in advertising and speeches, they will be effective. These themes could be (in no particular order):
1. Hothead/lack of self-control
2. Lobbyists run campaign and Reed/Abramoff connection
3. Elitist (9 houses, takes 5 million to be rich, $500 shoes, etc.
4. Ignorant on foreign affairs (not knowing difference between Shia and Sunni, comment about Georgia/Russia conflict being the first of the 21st century, thinking Iraq and Pakistan share a border, etc. etc.)
5. Warmonger
6. Bush continued, but worse (see above)

How about "confused rhetoric" as a tag for McCain? Or maybe "uninformed bluster"?

"Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"--yeah, coming from a guy whose childhood nickname was McNasty, I think they might be on to something with this "reckless hothead" business.

Duh.

one way this would backfire is that mccain will trot out his son's current service as proof that he hates war. the media will yell how dare anyone suggest he doesn't care about his family? response: why don't you ask his first family about how much he cares about family.