Centerfield

The chosen criticism is that Obama's positivism lacks specifics or that where it does, it's standard garden variety liberalism. I think that has legs, because the former speaks to doubting democrats and the latter to conservative McCain doubters.

Obama has woven quite a spell this far. I think it's a pretty defensible bet that the spell will be difficult to sustain for another 9 months. The problem for Obama is that once you get past positivism and hope and yes we can, what is there to talk about? I don't say that to disparage. My point is that all those pundits and blogs have to have content to discuss, and all those tv stations still have a bunch of airtime to fill after the speech excerpts and the footage of the fawning crowds.

It is a pretty good bet that the spell will break over the next nine months, particularly, as you say, with so much airtime to fill. Something will happen, whether it's an incident, an issue, or perhaps several of such.

But I think personality plays in to how all this will evolve. Just as an example, I would point to Bill Clinton's blunder a few weeks ago. What he did hurt his wife's campaign at a critical moment. But look at him and listen to him at every appearance since -- you see the same smile, sense the same confidence, and the guy just carries on. People like that make their way in the world, usually with success. The confidence they exude ends up taking them places, almost regardless of circumstance.

My bet is that Obama weathers whatever's coming. I say that as someone fairly troubled by the portions of his speeches where he talks about policy -- it's basically rolling back each part of the Bush agenda. I dont think the reverse of each Bush policy is what constitutes good government. And, on foreign policy, I don't think Obama is positioning himself to deal with the tough world out there. He'll have less leverage due to a perceived eagerness to cut a deal.

The big advantage he has -- the big asset -- his his personality, combined with his sharp mind. He will bounce back in a way that Kerry and Gore could not.

I basically agree,

To win against Obama, if Obama beats Hillary, IMHO McCain has to go mostly positive.

The implication that Obama is less mature didn't work for me, because it's clear to me he's been around the block, too, and made a mistake or three, and also learned from them. But then, that's a demonstration of one trouble with negative campaigning - you have to choose clear and substantiable problems that will stick with a broad audience.

Kritter is right about empty airtime - unless, of course, McCain fills it airtime with too many attacks. That, I think, is one major dimension of Clinton's problems. If she'd kept her cool, stuck to pushing her advantages and plans, and limited her negative campaigning to pointing out how much better-considered her plans were, she'd be clearly winning by now.

But she got nervous. If Obama wins, will McCain get nervous, too? After all, he also has to be nervous about the political tides.

Will, I probably should have started by saying that I got your point. I do.

It reminds me of that far side cartoon of the guy in hell who is whistling and pushing a wheelbarrow, and satan is saying "I'm just not getting through to that guy."

I don't find what McCain has said to be "negative"per se, it's sort of constructive criticism because he relates it to the direction he'd take instead. Now of course, if the media chooses to portray the battle by contrasting the glorious one and his fawning crowd with the naysayingest sound bites of McCain, that could be a problem.

I guess my point is that I don't think McCain's biggest problem is that he has chosen to criticize Obama for the questionable substance behind his sweeping rhetoric.

McCain has far bigger problems:

•Bush fatigue

•the crappy economy, which gets blamed on the GOP team QB, and leads to the RU betr off query

•the considerable likelihood of diminished turnout from the grumpy right wing

• the lion in winter problem of his palpably diminished vitality, especially in comparison to the Obamanon

This last point is the one that I think may be most troublesome, because it's going to be a visceral response for some voters. Let me be clear that I'm not saying it's fair, or that it's something I personally view as a disqualifier. I just think it's there. I see a guy who looks old, doesn't move around much, doesn't get very revved up, speaks pretty quietly, and doesn't seem to have a go-to stump repertoire.

Let me add further that I'm not saying he can't win. I'm just saying that these are the things he has to counter.

I think McCain really does have to continue making the lack of substance argument. I just can't see McCain out -rosegardening Obama. That WOULD be a blowout.

Nice outline of factors McCain has to contend with. I really haven't decided whether nominating McCain was the best option for the Republicans. He gets the strong advantage of the level of regard he clearly has in the media (all those chats with reporters in the back of his campaign bus in 2000 count for something), and he gets his natural appeal to independents and moderates. But would a more vital Romney, with all that business experience to boot, do better this year?

One thing I've noted for about the past year on Josh Marshall's site was a kind of sweeping contempt for the guys in the Republican presidential field. They all have issues, obviously, but they're also one of the more talented collections of candidates we've seen in recent years. Given the major area of weakness each of the leading Democrats has (Hillary's divisiveness and Obama's inexperience), it was always likely that the Republican challenger would make a serious run.

My take for what it is worth is the following;

1. McCain's central arguement will be whether Obama is the true moderate who can bring the sides together on charm alone and whether Obama has a clue about foreign policy and the threats to our natonal security. Last, I would say there is a toughness factor given the political climate and McCain certainly knows Hillary is vetted though Obama has never faced tough opposition with brutal attacks in his short political history.

2. As for the first point, Obama has pandered Left to out flank Hillary and has actually created one of the most divisive primaries in a long time. His wife suggested Bill had made racist remarks. Supporters circulated these accusations while Obama himself went personal long before this. How strange for a uniter claiming Hillary is a Republican lite. McCain can make the case that Obama is more Liberal than Clinton and has the endorsement of most moonbats. McCain can also point out what everyone already knows: the media gives Obama a huge advantage. If I were McCain I would quote Obama's saying that to bring change (beat the Republican views) we must advance "like we are busting down the doors of segregation". This comment came before any remarks by the Clintons on race, or when Clyburn declares that Barak was running as the white candidate...LOL

3. On the second point, Obama can been grilled over a huge list of foregn polciy landmines. I won't waste the time here but some are stunning. World events will break through the media filter and the silence from Obama will fly in his face. While he lift's rhetoric from JFK/Reagan and talks about "talking" to our enemies, he hasn't even spoken to European leaders in Europe as JFK did. Our allies are far more concerned about the world than Obama is. McCain will have a litany of things Obama will stumble over. Remember, Obama is head of a Senate Foreign Relations Sub Committee on Eastern Europe and NATO. He has never held a meeting nor addressed several serious problems including NATO's poor effort in Afghanistan, NATO's new call for a nuclear first strike against conventional attack (like Putin did), Serbian threats against Kosovo Independence, new high-speed centrifuges at work in Iran (at what secret lab were they made Senator Obama?), secret nuclear faclities in Syria, Russian meddling in Eastern Europe including threats to target the Ukraine with nukes, Russian over-flights of Navy ships, Chavez's threats on his neighbors, the terrible silence and inaction on Darfur, Somalia and Kenya. It won't take much for McCain to show that Obama is confused. Just look at his remarks on Pakistan months ago when he talked about "sending troops into Northern Pakistan". So there is a huge area to attack Obama including his claim that pulling out of Iraq will bring peace and that no progress has been made. McCain will simply ask what signals will Obama send to the world? That we will "talk"? Iran has already said they have no intention to talk to Democrats or Republicans, nor will they stop their support of Hamas, Hizb"Allah or discontinuing enrichment. McCain will ask Obama at what point were the Iraians were at what point and where when they halted their bomb in 2003? Can Obama tell the American people that he knows of every Iranian facility or that he even now supports his endorser's declaration as he did in 2004 (and again to AIPAC) that "Iran will not be permitted to get the bomb"? Then please explain his absurd stand on sanctions.

4. Obama hasn't faced the swift-boaters. Rezko trial is coming up and Judicial Watch List places Obama as one of the ten most corrupt Fed representitives. Hillary's charges have been vetted for years without indictment. Obama is going to have a whole lot of heat on him. People are not likely to forget the free pass he got from LIberal media as both tore down Hillary and were mute or encouraged the sexism present among Democratic males. Without playing the race card, Obama would not have had as many victories and poor judgment means thinking Red Sate caucus victores by organized activists means turning these States Blue come November.

Obama is dancing, but should he win the nomination watch Hispanics, Jews, Women, asians, Independents and Reagan Democrats peeling off to support McCain. Obama will have few answers when pressed. He is not a good debater and McCain will be armed and dangerous.

Democrats will be making a huge mistake for voting style over substance, rejecting the DLCers, tearing down Clintons, pandering to the Dean Wing and staying silent on the threats in the world while receiving obvious support from liberal media. Let's just hope Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania stand up.

No Obama, giving out free donuts will not do away with the Latte-crowd image. It is too much part of your campaign of hypocricy and misdirection. The general election will be a whole different donut.

Here's an interesting post on Obama's purported lack of substance from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. Constitutional law scholars like Obama tend to be pretty shallow, though, so I'm pretty skeptical.

Simon posted this link over at SF. This is what is heading towards Obama and I can't say there aren't a number of Clinton supporters who don't agree with some of the comments. Frankly, I am getting quite uncomfortable with the Obama's the more I am exposed them them.

Any one else feel this way?

Mrs. Onama also said some time ago in Michigan that for the first time in her life, she felt proud to be an American. Sorry, this woman does make Hillary seem nice.

Sorry Simon for stealling your link.....clever GOP strategy of trying to knock off Hillary so Republicans can face Obama. Couldn't have done it however without Liberal media help. Maybe some Independents and Liberal undecideds in Texas might want to consider voting for Hillary. March 14th is the witching hour.