John McCain used to represent a certain feisty integrity for me. I looked forward to his campaigning on the issues with Obama when he completed the primary, and was surprised when his campaign said its strategy would be “Swift-boat times ten.”

I should no longer be surprised. Yet I was, last night, when he ran an ad honoring Obama’s achievement and saying he wouldn’t attack him that night. I was surprised and touched, deeply, nearly to tears that this person I used to consider a hero might show decency - even if, arguably, for political purposes.

I should not be surprised that he then attacked Obama that very night.

Right after the message spread via the TV to the public, McCain issued a statement of attack against Obama’s speech to the media, right as the speech ended.

It is rife with conservative commentators, sneers from feckless Clintonistas and out-of-context quotes.

So this is the final straw for me. I read about his assinine treatment of TIME interviewers, which should dynamite his “straight talk” persona if it sees print. I read about his slathering on the POW defense so thick that he even brings it up on Leno, heedless of how many others suffered captivity.

Now, to make this seeming gesture of respect just a cover for an attack, compels me to state the obvious: John McCain is being an asshole.

Perfect speeches require that they be the perfect speech for a particular time, a certain occasion.

Obama gave a perfect speech for his acceptance of the Vice Presidential nomination.

I do not say this lightly. I say it because many went into the speech wanting different things, but few came away from it feeling unsatisfied.

For those that have never really met him, like dozens of independents who said they received it so well, it was a splendid introduction.

For those of us who have been following him closely for months, it was an emphasis of the versatile strengths he brings:

It was inspiring, but not an epic flight of rhetoric like his ‘One America’ speech. It was substantive about policy and how he will realistically achieve it, though not as remarkably thorough as his Web site. It was aggressive toward McCain, but not in a way that was either reactive or disrespectful.

It is a perfect instrument for getting a sense of who he is.

So, when you are ready - long-time friend or open-minded independent - press ‘Play’ below, and meet Barack Obama.

The media lives by a perversion of a good, old creed: If they don’t have anything bad to say, they don’t say anything at all. There’s ample evidence in this when it comes to the Convention coverage, culminating in their latest hamstringing non-story against the Dems: “The Greek Temple” story.

First they did all they could to make it seem like Hillary’s repetitively positive support speech was a closet betrayal of Obama:

My assessment of the speech is in line with Mike Huckabee’s - if Hillary had been any more Obama-centric, her people and the media wouldn’t have believed her:

And now, after Bill Clinton’s “Ready, Ready, Ready” speech, the media ran out of gas on its disunity story. It really has no leg to stand on when it comes to skeletons and closets, or on issues. So it decided to pluck a seed from the GOP and heap bullshit on it to make it grow:

The Greek Temple story, to those of you not watching the news today, is that Obama’s speech platform looks like a Greek temple. This, the media says, betrays his presumptuousness, or may cause problems with many voters who think him presumptuous. It is what everybody’s talking about - or, rather, what they decided everyone would.

On Drudge Report, we find no less than three headlines devoted to it, and all three cable news channels have been weaving it into all their coverage, FOX most of all.

I report this in the interest of scoring another fat, dark mark under what is rapidly becoming the central thesis of my political views for the 21st century: The Media Is The Problem.

Clearly, Obama meant to suggest Presidential gravitas by choosing architecture that looks like Washington, DC - Neoclassical. Far be it for him to be majestic; he is, after all, only running to be leader of the free world.

But the media’s obsession with making this aura of something great and noble look like a negative shames the entire process. McCain, in announcing it to be something shameful, is not only being disingenuous, but is also downright perverse. Why shouldn’t we aspire to better? Why shouldn’t we appreciate refinement and glory?

Reagan knew we should, as did Roosevelt and Kennedy. But their efforts would have been mocked and belittled by the media and the McCain camp - decreed out-of-touch, elitist, haughty. And in denying that majesty, they deny us the privilege of that grandeur resonating in us.

Obama himself said it well when speaking of his candidacy: That the excitement and the spectacle was not about him; that the greatness people invested in him was the greatness in themselves, and in America. I believe it. Many believe it. The media despises it.

They and McCain tear it down. And so, by extension, they tear us all down.

The manufactured story about the “Greek Temple” haughtiness shows that if there are no reasons to be ashamed and afraid, they will invent them. In a world informed by the demolition of grand spectacles, all we will have left is disaster.

Four outstanding speeches were featured at the DNC last night; only two were featured, and one was too early for some to see:

Clinton

Message: “The Ready Speech” - Obama is ready to lead, ready to defend the Constitution, ready to be President.

Kerry

Message: “Senator McCain v. Candidate McCain” - “Talk about being before it before you were against it.”

Tammy Duckworth

Message: “McCain Encourages Partial Privatization of VA”

Bear in mind something about McCain’s partial privatization efforts: This is a complex issue.

McCain’s argument is that farming out care to private providers will alleviate the burden on the VA and allow for faster treatment for both combat injuries and other care.  This is the “rationed care” he and Tammy talk about.

VA support groups, like the Disabled Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, have not received his plan well.  They argue that the VA can and does already do such a thing, and it needn’t be mandated.

A good breakdown of the conflict is here.

Biden

Message: “Save the American dream” - Obama and I are working Joes, and McCain will sell us out at this critical time.

Enjoy.  These are not to be missed.

The Obama campaign has stuck by some hard calls: Ground troops in Pakistan. Moderation on guns and abortion. Not mandating health care.

They call it like it is. And, as if inspired by my article, they called McCain for what he is.

Obama campaign chief of staff Jim Messina slams McCain in a meeting with Iowa Democrats.

Speaking of McCain’s home state of Arizona, says:

“If Senator McCain continues to be the schmuck he’s being, we’re going to play there, you know, and go tell some truth.”

They best stand by it.

I have said it on this blog before, and I say it here again: Prevailing military wisdom is that while the defense is the strongest stance, the attack is the most preferrable, because the attack defines the battle. This is a lesson that the Democrats are ignoring at their peril in the case of the election, and one they best take to heart soon.

In the case of the election, the Democrats are letting John McCain define the “narrative” of the two candidates - their personalities. He is doing this primarily through ads, surrogates and 527 insinuations. The story he tells is a simple, resonant one for most Americans:

“I am a war hero who suffered for your sins of failure in Vietnam and for love of country. My opponent is a radical black man, an outsider to your way of life, and you cannot trust him because he is so charming.”

It is hitting home. Obama is being pounded down in the polls, from starlet to symbol of an uncertain future. His positives are being turned into negatives. McCain, on the attack, is defining the positive course of the direction - and he’s turning it down a very dark road: One where voters are focused on how afraid they are of Obama, and so cannot realize they should be terrified of McCain.

Yet Obama and the Democrats are allowing it happen. Only recently have they really put their shoulders into shoving Obama’s biography forefront in this campaign. They have, over the past few weeks and especially at the convention, tried to show the “hero of the working class” Obama and his blue-collar-rooted wife.

This is a reaction, not an action. It is, therefore, inherently subordinate to the opposition’s strategy. McCain is still directing events.

And the main way Democrats are allowing this to happen is because they are not making attacks of their own. They attack on issues and they attack on reasoning. If voters voted on either of these points, or if the media had any compelling interest in the truth being told, this would matter.

Voters vote on their emotions - on how they feel about a candidate’s stance on an issue, not by knowing what that stance is. The media hates the truth; the truth means things are settled, meaning conflict is over with, and you might as well change the channel.

The Democrats must attack on basis of character. Instead, they reinforce McCain’s definition of himself as all the while he rips down Obama:

The GOP accuses Obama of being a terrorist, of being a radical, of hating the country, of wanting to lose the war so that he could win the election. The Democrats call John McCain, “a good man,” “a good friend,” a “good soldier” of “honored sacrifice,” acting as though he was just doing what politicians do - playing to a base - and so suffering a temporary lapse of morals.

They need to stop this. It shores up McCain’s story, making his claims - false though they may be - seem founded in truth and integrity.

They need to hit his character. They need to define the battle. They need to start hammering home who these candidates are - a man who has devoted his life to bringing people of all kinds together to solve the problems of the common man, and a conniving, venal, ambitious and hateful man who plays the political currents for his own ends.

No more “good friend.” No more “good soldier.” No more “honored service.” Let Tucker Bounds float those potty logs. Start making waves:

Remind people of the Keating Five. It shows his avarice.

Remind people of his first wife being left broken in body and heart for a beer heiress. It shows his selfishness.

Remind people of his anger, of how “everyone in Congress has a John McCain story,” of how he called his wife a cunt for criticizing his thinning hair. It shows his spite.

Remind people of the constant mistakes he makes. Remind them of the constant lying. Remind them that he’s got nothing, nothing, which is why he tries to scare people into rejecting his opponent - and remind them that those are the actions of a coward.

Call him a coward. Call him old. Call him hateful.

People may think this is going overboard. But this is what is working against Obama. It is a tactic where the voter may not agree with its statement, but they feel ill thinking about the candidate - they fear him, doubt him, despite their better sense. They don’t feel like voting for him. They stay home. Or they get angry and march.

This is what a population with an electorate galvanized by rage wants.

They are furious at Bush. Furious that their jobs are vanishing, furious at the war. The Democrats must channel that fury. Direct it at McCain.

Otherwise, he will continue direct it at them.

Obama can stay above this fray - he can simply avoid praising McCain in any fashion and play to the central message: That McCain is a lying flip-flopper, “The Great American Sell Out.” But the rest of the Dems must do their jobs as surrogates, and start handing out torches to the angry mob that’s waiting to burn the monster of the last eight years.

Sincere. Forceful. Unabashed.

And, most important of all, noble.

Watch Hillary’s finest moment. You will be watching history:

There will surely be troubles in the future. But now the troubles of the past are past.

Today, Russia recognized South Ossetia.

Their nascent future might be difficult with the United States and many NATO nations not recognizing them. They are not strangers to difficult times, though - that is the fabric of their history. That, and that they endure.

And this is one piece of America that is proud to recognize South Ossetia.

A clever ad on many levels.

Hopefully it’ll stick in viewers’ heads, prompting them to change the tune.

Hillary lied about campaign contributions, Bosnia and her opponents’ records. McCain has taken it up a notch to test the tensility of the press’ protective envelope about him. He lied about both a future saint and babies.

The McCains generously adopted a child, Bridget, from Dhaka. That much we know. The story of it, prior to this campaign, was, as told by Cindy:

Mother Teresa has an orphanage in Dhaka. … [W]e saw 150 newborns on one floor. … And the nuns said, [This little girl with a cleft palate]–can’t you take her and get her medical help? And I thought, well, sure I can, I can do that.

A moving tale. It’s hard to deflate the appeal and value of that, and one would be wrong to try.

Similarly, it would be wrong to inflate it. It just so happens that is precisely what the McCain 2008 campaign did. As Cindy said, before they took it off the McCain Web site:

“While working at Mother Teresa’s orphanage in the early 1990s, I stumbled upon the most beautiful little girl I’d ever seen. … As only Mother Teresa can, she prevailed upon me to take this baby and another baby to the United States for medical care.”

On the Web site, it read:

On one of those missions, Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need of medical attention to the United States.

The claims, since the publication of the investigative article I linked to, have since vanished.

But the question lingers - why embellish? It’s generous enough to have done what she did. Why bring Mother Teresa into it unless it was purely a lie to increase one’s political prestige by association?

This incessant fabrication is getting pathological. It’s not enough to be pro-life now; you have to have a “25 year pro-life record” even though you don’t. It’s not enough to run against your opponent’s positions, you have to lie and say he’s not made his clear. Let me tell you, dear reader - when you so consistently avoid the truth, it’s because you have a lot to hide.

The only thing more pathetic is how the media pays absolutely no attention, preferring the spine-tingling surge of a shouting match to the substance of reasoned and productive debate.

I woke up from the usual political nightmares today to find an e-mail from a trusted confidant:

I’ve heard and thought more about McCain’s statement re number of houses, and I recommend that you avoid the subject on your blog.

I was thinking of the same. Nevertheless, yesterday’s article had been about how Obama needs to get on the attack with ads, and the housing attack was cited. I read on.

I am really sick of the current iteration of “Gotcha” Politics, especially as advanced by Talk Radio and Cable TV (including MSNBC). If you’re going to play that game, do it the way Tim Russert did: issue-driven, geared toward determining intellectual honesty.

Let’s please focus on substance….This is a critical time in world history, and I’m saddened by the baseness of American discourse.

A co-worker who’s got a good head on his shoulders said something similar about the house ad. Though I should note that he’s somewhat more disposed to the Republicans - and the confidant above is thoroughly a Democrat, albeit a frustrated one - he felt the ad was “humorous” and “petty.” He too said he cared about the issues.

Almost everybody I talk to does.

So, if this model holds true, shouldn’t candidates experience a climb in the polls when they focus not on their opponent, but on the issues?

Recently, John McCain has enjoyed a leap in his polling numbers. Over the past two months, Obama has gone from leading by 6.8 to 1.4! McCain’s favorable ratings have held mighty strong, while Obama’s plummeted an average of 10 points! And battleground states right and left - no pun intended - have been beginning to trend to McCain.

Therefore, given that everyone cares about the issues, and abhors negative, petty, humorous trash, McCain must be talking about the issues while Obama talks about trash.

Let’s review the ads they released over the past month and a half - the period of Obama’s preciptous decline - to see who is staying away from those poisonous “Gotcha” politics. We’ll do the survey week by week.

One Month Ago

Obama Ads: “Sand Dunes” (about McCain and his energy plan), “New Energy” (about his energy plan), “America’s Leadership” (about Obama’s record in the Senate fighting terrorism and partisanship; a Matt Funk Favorite), “Restore” (about Obama’s security policy, and denouncing a McCain ad against him as “misleading”)

McCain Ads: “Jobs for America” (about McCain bringing jobs for America), “Love” (about how McCain was a POW during the summer of love, and loves his country), “God’s Children” (about how hispanics are good Americans, even illegal immigrants), “Troop Funding” (lies about Obama’s record on troops and security; the “misleading” ad above), “Pump” (claims Obama is responsible for gas soaring because of his opposition to gas tax holiday)

Main Media Topic: Obama’s support is fragile (see Jesse Jackson’s nuts and related).

Three Weeks Ago

Obama Ads: “Old Politics” (claims McCain is misleading on “Pump” ad, above; outlines Obama’s energy plan), “Low Road” (about how McCain is being negative in his campaigning, just like the Bush campaign of ‘00 and ‘04)

McCain Ads: “Celeb” (compared Obama to Paris and Britney, saying he’s an empty celebrity), “The One” (denounces Obama as “messianic” and his followers as zealots)

Main Media Topic: Is Obama a vain celebrity?

Two Weeks Ago

Obama Ads: “Pocket” (notes McCain gets massive contributions from oil companies, gives them big tax breaks), “Low Road Express” (says McCain’s running a negative campaign), “Original” (shows the similarities between McCain and Bush’s record)

McCain Ads: “Broken” (says McCain has fought corruption in both parties), “Family” (claims Obama’s economic plan will ruin your family’s financial future), “Painful” (says Obama is a detached celebrity, while Americans go through tough times)

Main Media Topic: Why won’t Barack fight back?

One Week Ago

Obama Ads: “Fat Cat” (indicates how Obama does not take lobbyist or PAC money), “Book” (illustrates how Bush and McCain have nearly identical policies), “Fix the Economy” (shows how McCain says the economy is good, and how middle class Americans don’t)

McCain Ads: “Recipe”, “Fan Club”, “Taxman”, “Maybe”, “Millions” and “The One - Road to Denver” (all claiming Obama is an out of touch celebrity)

Main Media Topic: Why won’t Barack fight back, since he is losing support?

The data suggests a point contrary to my canny confidants’ - namely, that running negative ads about absolute crap is really, really effective in swaying voters.

McCain attacked right at one of Obama’s chief strengths - and the only one the media spends a lot of time discussing - his charisma. He turned the positive quality of being able to inspire hope and excitement in others into a negative to be feared.

The result has, as those poll numbers show, not been insubstantial. And so I have to respectfully disagree with my confidants on this one: It is talking about the issues that does not work. The media does not pay anywhere near as much attention to that as it does to the kind of feckless nonsense that “Celeb” and its spawn consist of.

Proof of this? Almost no one I talk to knows what Obama’s policies are. In the issue-oriented ads I noted above and in gatherings around the country, he’s been outlining his policies - especially his economic and energy policies. Few I talk to know what they are.

The media instead talks about how Obama is showing weakness by not going after McCain. As the ads above also show, Obama has attacked McCain - but he’s attacked him on the issues. That has nowhere near the resonance of crappy personal attacks, nor does it has their wonderful, toxic ancillary benefit of poisoning whatever the person says.

After “Celeb,” most fence-sitters will be disposed to not believing Obama, regardless of his issue stance. They will, by default, see him as unready, insubstantial and out of touch. This detracts from the power of his issue stances, and adds to McCain’s.

I wish things were different, my dear confidants. But with the lead Op-Ed pieces this Friday being, “Yes We Can Turns To Oops, We May Not,” “Why McCain Is Rising,” “Why Obama Has To Get Mad To Win,” “The Mystery of Obama’s Problems” and “The End of the Fairy Tale,” the media is focusing on other than the issues.

In a perfect world, the media would devote all its time to weighing the empirical truth of each candidate’s statements. It would engage in follow-up, eschew rumor and radicalism, and extol good behavior. In our world, it doesn’t.

It craves ignorance, wanting to keep the audience always wondering, so they’ll stay aggravated and tuned in. It spurns follow-up when it’s off-message, fixates solely on rumor and radicalism, and denigrates good behavior as weak. It hates the kind of campaigns my confidants want, and it will deny the candidate who runs it a voice.

One might argue that Obama’s problem is that during the primary, he set the tone - “Change” - while Hillary was stuck on issues and negative attacks. Now, Obama has tried to address the people who say he’s an empty suit by talking policy, and McCain is setting the tone - “Negativity.”

The solution, then, would be to consistently ignore McCain and to find a positive, inspiring message again. That could be the case after the Democratic Convention, when the VP can be the attack dog and Obama can go back to giving rousing speeches about hope.

Yet two problems with this remain:

One, it doesn’t address the qualms of my confidant, who knows little of Obama’s issues and would just as soon vote McCain, since you know what you’re getting from him. Millions of Americans presumably feel the same.

And two, the media wants a fight. They demand a fight. And now that two months of criticizing Obama for not being aggressive has resulted in the insipid “House Gaffe,” they are sneering at him for being “just like any other politician” while slobbering all over the story of McCain’s senility.

Given these, it’s hard to argue that the Ad War is not best won the Simple Way, by drilling into the American people’s heads that while your candidate may not have great issue positions … at least he’s not the flip-flopping, elitist vanity plate the other guy is.

That is, of course, how the last two elections were won.

The war in Iraq now has an end in sight.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are “very close” to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here.

It may be over. In three years, it may be over.

After under-supplying our forces. After no planning for reconstruction or protection. After believing the intelligence that was a lie and ignoring the intelligence that was true.

After Scowcroft and Baker, closest friends of Bush’s father, bravely spoke out against going in. After the UN inspectors asked for more time. After a million people on a single day worldwide protested the war.

After the annihilating force of Shock and Awe. After the awesome courage of the troops like the famous “Generation Kill” 1st Recon and the brilliance of field leadership by commanders like Petraeus. After the battles of Nasriyah, Al Qut and the Thunder Run into Baghdad.

After every ministry was left to the looters - except the oil ministry. After treasures and palaces that had survived over six thousand years, from the earliest civilization, went unprotected and were lost forever to destruction and looting. After Shiite death squads began working even before the Saddam statue toppled.

After the Iraqi Army was disbanded. After the weapons caches were left open and unguarded. After nearly every official in public service prior to the war was banned from operating in public service ever again.

After things really began to fall apart.

After the UN presence was destroyed. After mass detentions began dragging Iraqis indiscriminately into dungeons like Abu Ghraib. After the Corporations - Blackwater, Halliburton, DynCorp - showed up and began acting without legal penalty.

After over $11 billion in overcharging to the American taxpayer by those corporations went unpunished. After faulty wiring began electrocuting troops, Blackwater convoys fired at civilians without warning as a matter of routine, buildings scheduled to be built were built late and broken.

After our soldiers paid out of their own pockets to employ Iraqi builders and to send themselves body armor. After “IED” became a household word. After we were told not worry.

After the “only real patriots” didn’t ask questions about the war. After everyone else was said to hate America. After political discourse in our country turned to poison.

After the complex atlas of hostile parties in Iraq were just “a few loyalist hold-outs.” After criticizing the war became “defeatist.” After the Iraqis were going to stand up, so that we could stand down.

After the Iraqis rose up.

After burning bodies in Fallujah. After the brutal battles of Sadr City. After Nasriyah exploded.

After we learned about Abu Ghraib sex torture. After we learned about the Haditha massacre. After we learned about the Mahmudiyah rape killings.

After we built oil lines that were blown up. After we shipped aid supplies that disappeared in the hands of the government. After the veteran suicide rate spiked.

After purple fingers on election day. After Saddam swung from the end of a rope with a Howard Hughes beard. After you stopped hearing people ask about WMDs.

After the Samarra mosque bombing turned slow massacres into all out war.

After Halliburton was investigated, found guilty and still employed. After Abu Ghraib was investigated, the soldiers were imprisoned and the DynCorp architects of torture never even charged by name. After the body counts shot up again.

After Rumsfeld.

After Petraeus.

After the Sunni butchering our troops were paid to become our agents against al-Qaeda. After Sadr was tricked into a ceasefire. After our troops attacked the very Iraqi government we had put in power, killing and capturing agents of Iran within it.

After the Surge forces arrived and began rolling back al-Qaeda. After security and commerce soared. After the body counts dropped.

Now, we might get to go home.

Things in the Two-Front War are not going well. I doubt things will take such a dive that we’ll hear other than the trumpet blasts of victory at the RNC, but take note, for I’m saying it now: The good days are going to sour soon.

In Iraq, we’re going to get a show of just why and how “The Surge” succeeded in its operational objectives - the Sunni Awakening will be waking up to the fact that we have just sold them down the Euphrates.

First it was the Shiites. Then the Kurds. Now the Sunni we told to “rise up” are getting their necks stomped by both sides - by al-Qaeda and by the Shiite fundamentalists running Baghdad.

Shiite-led government is cracking down on U.S.-backed Sunni Arab fighters in one of Iraq’s most turbulent regions, arresting some leaders, disarming dozens of men and banning them from manning checkpoints except alongside official security forces. …

“The continuation of the Awakening Councils as they are now is unacceptable,” said Ali al-Adeeb, a close al-Maliki aide and a senior member of his Dawa Party.

So much for our “brothers in arms.” They were the chief reason that our troop increase was other than just a super-sized order of body bags, but they’re on their own now. And with Maliki eager to sell the farm to Iran and the mullahs pulling the strings, the Sunni are well and truly screwed.

They have no intention of suffering in silence.

“We fought the Americans for four years and we fought al-Qaida, too,” said al-Safi, a former Iraqi army commando during Saddam Hussein’s regime who fought in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. “We are an experienced armed group. We are fully capable of bringing the house down.”

With that kind of barbed rhetoric laying the terrain, its no surprise the Baghdad response has been swift and scattershot. They’ve started grabbing major players in the Awakening before the organization can wake up to the fact that they’re under fatal attack.

The troops stormed the office of the provincial governor, Raad Rashid al-Tamimi, triggering a gunfight that killed his secretary and wounded four of his guards, police said.

The Sunni head of the provincial council’s security committee, Hussein al-Zubaidi, was arrested, police said.

Later, troops raided the home of the president of Diyala University, Nazar al-Khafaji, handcuffed him, placed a hood over his head and led him away, his nephew Ismail Ibrahim Sabi said.

So now another enormous question mark sits like the reaper’s scythe on Iraq’s neck - much like when Maliki pounced on Sadr back in spring. Sadr chose to roll over after a few decisive scraps showed he and his civilian base had nowhere to scuttle to. The Sunni, however, are accustomed to running operations spread across hell and gone.

And unlike Sadr, who always had to deal with communities split between Maliki’s Hakim loyalists and his own Mahdi army, the Sunni are all united in their contempt for the government. If they feel the time has come to do damage before they get cuffed and dumped, the dispatches from Mesopotamia may start running red again.

This could be a major reason why the US is eager to sign on to signing out of the Iraq conflict. A time horizon - read “time table” - is already drafted, and talks are beginning in earnest between the US State Department and the boys in Baghdad to work out the little details.

This could mean that the White House wants to set us on a track that gets us out before the real shooting starts. It could mean that they’re confident that the Iraqi Army can crush any paroxysm of payback from the backstabbed Sunni. Whatever it means, this much is certain:

The Iraqi Civil War is about to enter a new and fatal phase.

Obama has been sharpening his rhetoric lately, but he and his campaign mustn’t mistake counterattacking for attacking. Whereas it’s a fine tactic on the battlefield - the World War II German Army, held out way, way longer than they should have by turning it into an artform - it usually makes it look like you’re losing. In a game of appearances like politics, that can be fatal.

So here I propose a simple strategy of attack for the Obama campaign to exact on McCain. The “KISS” principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid - comes into effect here, because contrary to what the ruddy-pated right-wing mouthpieces might say, people really /do/ want a simple solution to cling to these days.

Make these two points. Make them forcefully, incessantly, and whenever conversation strays to other topics, somehow connect it back here. The military calls this “concentration of force.”

1. McCain is the worst flip-flopper ever.
2. McCain is betraying veterans.

With those two points preceding you, you not only have two succinct and devastating points - for proof of “devastating,” see “John Kerry 2004″ - you also have the truth on your side.

McCain does flip-flop. This is way, way easier to prove than with Kerry. A little follow-up on any discrepancy in his past will make him burp up a “I was for it before I was against it” line. It’s all downhill from there.

McCain has betrayed veterans. You can use the example of the GI Bill, but it goes much further than this, extending into his efforts to block VA spending bills and missing Iraq votes.

This also fits neatly with the fact that McCain blocked a unanimously supported Congressional effort to release POW/MIA information from the Pentagon and Hanoi. There are those who believe he did this to protect the ugly events that he was forced to submit to there.

With those two central axes of attack, manuever as needed. All this takes is a line of additional direction from the vector of the message:

“McCain is the worst flip-flopper ever. He sucked up to Sturgis after he’d fought for foreign motorcycles to be sold to our government agencies.”

“McCain betrayed veterans. He knows they fall within the lower tax brackets, but he taxes them more to give money to the rich 1%.”

You can even combine them:

“McCain is the worst flip-flopper ever. He pushed for the Iraq war, said it would be over in no time, and then said he intends to establish bases there for one hundred years. He betrayed our troops.”

This isn’t nice stuff. It is, however, resonant. Nice stuff tends to make people nod, then nod off. Not-nice stuff makes people angry.

Right now, they’re angry at the wrong guy.

In an ideal world, nobody would be angry. They would disagree with those who hold staunch but separate views, and would pour their positive energy into crystal-eyed demonstrations of communal support for their causes. That was the campaign Obama tried to run.

That campaign should be over. The one above is the one he should launch.

Today, he put out a video taking advantage of McCain forgetting how many houses he has. This is a good sign. He should keep hammering this point with every surrogate in his dog-eared address book: Most people may forget how many DVDs they own. Some lucky ones forget how many TVs they have. McCain forgot how many of something most people can’t even afford one of that he has.

And Obama hit him for it:

And McCain’s camp hit back in the dumbest way possible. They hit back mean, and with a lie: (see strategy #1, McCain The Lying Flip-Flopper)

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?” wrote spokesman Brian Rogers. “Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”
(Ed. Note: Lies in bold)

The answer to that is as follows:

“You can’t even challenge me without lying!”

“Private beach, flat out lie. As for my income, Americans can’t found their childrens’ futures on the hopes of getting a book deal. As for the rest of it, you’re just plain making it up…

“Which brings us to the bottom line - you can’t take a stand on anything without having to lie!”

Begin attack number one. Repeat until people never forget this central tenet:

No matter what John McCain says, no matter how offensive the attack, how brilliant the energy plan, how personal the accusation, how inspiring the message, he lies.

He is a lying flip-flopper that betrayed our vets.

It’s as simple as that.