"Describe Obama's time as a community leader and public servant as akin to war service."

Ehhhhh, I think that has "backfire" written all over it.

Maybe a backfire, but I see it as an opportunity to openly question how McCain's POW experience relates to actually leading a nation without people going batshit hysterical. When republican's ask "What does Obama's "service" compare to McCain's war record?" - Answer - "Good question, Obama's "service" actually relates to being a successful Commander-in-Chief"

I think this is a TERRIBLE idea. Please make them stop!

I'm hoping that this is some sort of trap being set for McGoo.

If not, I don't see the upside.

My God, I can see it now.

It will be painted as Obama equating his work as a community organizer not with "service," but with John McCain being tortured for 5 and 1/2 years as a POW in Vietnam.

This is a total loss. No wonder Obama wants complete control over his campaign.

As long as Obama never says it himself, I think it'll be fine. Let the Vets say what they "want." If he's asked about it, he should just defer to the vets themselves.

Service to the country people. People serve the country in a variety of ways, not just by signing up for the military. Good gawd....

Actually, I think you're misphrasing this, Greg. The veterans seem to be saying that Obama's actually served the interests of veterans more than John McCain has.

Look, not everything is a national ad or is presented to appeal to the entire clump of American voters.

Military folk and their families listen more to other military folk and their families. It's a tight-knit group. This is a very good strategy for getting information to that group.

Those of you with "national ad campaign" mentality need to rethink things, I believe. Take Obama's campaign running targeted local ads and his appearances before specific audiences--like at Saddleback and in the Brody CBN interview. These are not conversations that are "national"--they are targeted to specific groups and sometimes to specific geographical regions.

This is a different style of campaign; Hillary and Bill were running the "national ad campaign" and I saw that up close and personal here in Missouri. Hillary lost in Missouri--not by much, but it was a major upset. And my city ward was not exempt from "Hillary should have won". At that meeting to start the delegate selection process, we had several folk who were shocked to learn that Hillary had not won the ward.

Even Democrats at the local level with heavy experience in the previous decades of campaigns are shocked by Obama success. This is a different style of campaign--and it will work.

Everybody knows McCain was a POW, not everybody knows Obama was a community organizer in Chicago's south side. If McCain attacks this it will A]Publicize Obama's community organizer work and B]Have him playing his POW card again - I think there could be an issue where he plays it too often it will lose value.

I'd rather the Obama camp didn't "go here" either, but have faith(even if it is fading) that there is a method to their madness.

Ah yes, Hussein has a proud history of Defending the Nation by virtue of his "community organizing" in Chicago. And all that crack smoke was really incoming fire, right?
This really is dumbing down the conversation.
Using their criteria we need to start giving Purple Hearts out to everyone who can sprain a wrist spanking their monkey.
And to think that the ObaDroids are actually pushing this!

This is the wrong answer.

The right answer is to do what Clark began to do some weeks ago: call McCain's own record of service into question.

This is what beat Kerry in 2004. Heck, it's what beat McCain in 2000.

And the great thing for the Democrats this year is that they can do it to McCain without lying about his record (unlike the Republican attacks on Kerry or, for that matter, McCain).

But they will need to be willing to ignore the cries of outrage from the GOP that would greet this strategy. And I don't think that the Democrats have it in them to do that.

If McCain wins this election, I think the refusal of the Obama campaign to stand behind Clark when he questioned the relevance of McCain's POW experience will be seen as the 2008 equivalent of Kerry's non-response to the swiftboaters in August 2004.

way to invite the mccain camp to fire back that obama is demeaning military service, by trying to equate it with other types of service, that's the kind on nonsense the media loves. they are better off just pushing the facts that he actually supports legislation that benefits those who serve their country, unlike mcstupid.

There is an interesting angle to the Vets for Obama. I was a Vet for Kerry in Wisconsin. Couple of nights ago, I got a call from a start-up Vets for Obama in WI. But I've moved to MI, so I said have the Michigan folks give me a call. Standard stuff. The Kerry campaign shared their list with Obama.

Now earlier his year, I was an out-of-state volunteer for Clinton. OOS volunteers are hard core. Travel on their own dime to canvass, etc. Got a form letter from Clinton says thanks, count on me to do right, etc., but no mention of Obama.

Then comes the got your name from Hillary phone call. From the Obama campaign? Nope. From a guy running for Congress in a district down the road. Knew how much I gave Hillary, knew I volunteered, the whole story.

Why isn't Clinton turning those lists over to Obama yet?

It's important for Obama to challenge McCain's judgment on National Security. All he has to do is bring up Bosnia. We won the Bosnia campaing in about two weeks using airpower. McCain wanted to send in ground troops, lots of them. How many American soldiers would have been killed fighting a ground campaign in central Europe? Fortunately America never had to find out, because President Clinton rejected Senator McCain's bad, bad advice. McCain, bellicose, impulsive and cocky, cannot be trusted with the lives of our troops. If he were president today, American troops would be headed to Georgia to fight the Russians. America can't afford that risk.