McCain setting his own trap with celebrity gambit

"There is no way you can watch him in a sit-down interview, or a one-on-one debate and conclude that he is a ditz over his head."

I've watched Obama in several sit-down interviews and in debating contests and he is far inferior to his teleprompter set-piece pre-written speeches. He gives great speeches and is obviously very bright, but he isn't good in repartee, where McCain is widely judged as quick & to the point, while Obama hems & haws & generally looks ill-at-ease. Maybe Elrod has seen other interviews where Obama has stood out, but I think Barack-O has been avoiding those town meetings McCain proposed for a reason. He isn't a very good debater when thinking on his feet.

Elrod...you make a very interesting point when you say: "McCain is actually lowering the bar for Obama in the debates."

I had commented that the "Obama in the Highest" media celebration was going to be a problem for Obama in the debates for who could meet those expectations . . . but, as you noted, if the "celeb" meme gains traction . . . all Obama needs to do is show he is not a stereotypical "dumb blonde" (no offense) and he gains a major advantage. Your reference to Carter/Reagan reinforces this point.

That said: I argue McCain had to do something to stop Obama's media momentum...which was insane...and which was costing McCain in coverage.

Facing the MSM's fascination with Obama's rockstar status...his huge advantage in fundraising...McCain needed to get back in the game.

His "Celeb" ad had 1.3 million views last time I noticed. Pretty good FREE coverage. Gallup now has them both TIED.

There is no arguing with results like that.

But Elrod's warning is important: McCain has cut Obama down with negativity...but now McCain needs to emphasize the positive about his own candidacy.

As Daveinboca notes, McCain has historically outperformed in loose interactive debates, while Obama outperforms in set speeches. But McCain cannot rely on this. I am sure Carter believed he would blow away that lightweight Reagan too.

MSM news is not all that popular anymore. When you watch the news now its an entertainment program ala Bill Oreilly, Keith Olberman etc. Hell I bet half the kids in America get their news from Jon Stewart. Good for democrats. Not so good for Republicans. That is why your seeing so many /snarky adds by McCain now directed at the internet.

I know the left/Democrats/Obama supporters are angry over any add that even remotely hints at being negative but just exactly what was a candidate who was essentially 10 points behind in June going to do.

Talk about issues? No one cares. Everyone seems to have their minds made up. The only thing these adds have done is to bring back into the fold those GOP'ers who were missing and demoralized. Suddenly they are waking up and realizing........Oh my gosh, if we stay home were going to put Obama in the White HOuse. Time to get off our butts.

I believe that in January 90 percent of America has decided who they are going to vote for. Either a Democrat or a Reublican. Obama in my opinion is doing more to harm his chances at the Moderate/Independents then is McCain.

Hes simply right one day and far left the next. Socialism one day and faith based iniatives the next. The cows are coming home in these polls. The question is not about the national numbers, its about the state numbers. Once again Obama is trying to out work McCain just as he did Clinton on the local level.

That is McCains challenge. He can run all the adds he wants but if he does not get the masses of people behind him its all irrelevant. Once again it will be a machine against a Tsunami.

Elrod, you are right about the "positive alternative" and this not only is true about McCain but about the GOP as well and we even can say in general for American conservatism. The lefties who aren't making idiots of themselves (which is all too often) on the radio have grasped this essential item with McCain. The word they use, which shows the have grasped what McCain needs to convey, is the word "affirmative" as in "McCain needs to provide an affirmative agenda or option to the American voter."

With the ad itself, there is no reason to over-analyze and worse, confuse what you may want to believe with how things really are, when it comes to this celebrity ad. The ad correctly addressed what has always been true with Obama, but came too late to have the effect it would and truly should have had. Obama himself is working to dispel the "fluff" problem (while continuing to play slick to those who love his style). Time itself is curing this problem. He's for real, as Super Tuesday proved. Enough, already! I heard the "racist" whiners *** TODAY *** on lefty talk radio and that is simply pathetic (and in fact, pathological -- diseased -- though in cases like this I may correctly suspect developmental problems of one kind or another).

Obama made a lunatic offer to voters that is a threat to those who know better -- he wants to give $1000 energy credits for people this winter while paying for them by a windfall profits tax on oil companies. He's combining McGovern (and a bit of Hugo Chavez) with Jimmy Carter! Only a lunatic would make that 'offer" while running for President -- unless the GOP is so pathetic that Obama has now succumbed to the risk in his past of being cocky, or the Dems overall (who are advising Obama) may already, prior to November, be starting to get over-confident.

Now consider how the GOP should be able to destroy Obama over this. But is that enough? *** NO *** Here is another example where the GOP has to offer something to people. Will they take steps to boost refining and heating oil (and gas; Dems like talking about heating oil because in the older Northeast where oil is still being used, it's very Democratic) this winter? Will the GOP release oil from the strategic reserve? (It's something McCain would well do as a Dem Lite.) What will the GOP do?

The Democrats had what seemed like dozens of debates during the primary season. It seems to me that Obama's abilities as a debater helped him seal the deal against Clinton.

I wonder if we won't see Rush Limbaugh and company drop their frequent assertion he can't talk without a teleprompter. Since that is another thing that lowers the bar for Obama in a debate.

Sen. Obama is clearly not ready to lead, so much so that this Democrat may well cast her first vote ever for a GOP presidential candidate in November.

Once you do that, Holly, please quit pretending to be a Democrat. Join that new political party which is the only one you want to be a part of, the Hillary Lieberman Party.

McCain is increasingly incompetent in town hall and interview forums. He may have been sharp in 2000, but he isn't anymore.

Obama was not so good in these settings a year ago but has improved a lot.

I think that if Obama and McCain had multiple town halls, McCain would look downright confused.

Yes, Obama is not a machine like Hillary Clinton. But he is far better in quieter sit-down moments these days than McCain.

Holly,
You have never defined what readiness to lead means for you. Ever. You've just asserted that Obama is not ready to be President. I personally think John McCain is not ready to be President. I think he is mentally unfit - he just makes things up about stuff he supposedly knows a lot about (like redefining the surge) - and I think he is a complete media fabrication based on his 2000 campaign. But hey, that's just me.

Like many of us we have seen Obama as an extension of the Democratic party and more particulary the far left wing of the Democratic party. That wing is not favorable at all to Israel.

Just as John McCain is being portrayed as an extension of the Bush Administration which we all know is a lie but it plays well with those who want to believe it. Many believe that because Obama was very sincerely antiwar in his campaign that that might very well translate to anti Israel once in the White House.

Yes I know that he has claimed over and over he is pro Israel but many politicians claim lots of things that are not true.

The fear is that as McCain is seen as an extension of Bush and the far right, Obama is seen as an extension of the Far left and their basic, I dont want to say anti Israel but certainly they are not lockstep in tune with Israels policies.

Neo, the far Left Liberal wing includes quites a few Jewish Democrats. Are you telling us that Schumer, Wexler and Wasserman Schultz are Israel haters? James Baker is hated by the AIPAC crowd, and he was Bush 41's cabinet member.

Neocon,
Barack Obama was NEVER soft on Israel. His primary backers in Chicago for his first State Senate run were staunchly pro-Israel Chicago Jews. The notion that he is somehow "weak on Isreal" is a based on little more than anti-black paranoia among some right wing Jews.

No where did I say they are Israel haters. I said that they are not favorable to Israel. I said that they are not lockstep in tune with Israeli's policies. There are exceptions to every rule, but allowing for exceptions does not invalidate the rule.

Spin it how you want. I said what I said and hopefully people can read what I said and not interpret it that I said the far left is Israel haters.

Barack Obama was NEVER soft on Israel. His primary backers in Chicago for his first State Senate run were staunchly pro-Israel Chicago Jews. The notion that he is somehow "weak on Isreal" is a based on little more than anti-black paranoia among some right wing Jews.

This is what I said.

Like many of us we have seen Obama as an extension of the Democratic party and more particulary the far left wing of the Democratic party. That wing is not favorable at all to Israel.

The left is trying to portray McCain as an extension of Bush. Is McCAin a cheerleader for the American Taliban.........er I mean the religious right? No but if you paint him that far right then by association he becomes an extension of ALL their beliefs. If the left can make the McBush thing stick then they have painted him.

I did not say Obama was Anti Israel, I said that by extension he is perceived as such. big Difference.

"not interpret it that I said the far left is Israel haters"

They typically are, though. It's not simply that Israel has been successful despite the odds against it, or that it seeks to be modern and democratic like the USA. That is the real problem, and note that their ugliness toward Israel (helping feed things like the scummy behavior of the UN General Assembly that such people probably still stupidly adore) began once Israel started prevailing not only against its nominal enemies, but against their sponsor, the Soviet Union, whereas the USA supported Israel in these conflicts. We know whose side the far Left chose.

Obama is clever enough, he can handle this and has done so in a way that throws a sop to the fulminant who see racism anywhere and everywhere: He says the McCain campaign is cynical, not racist. Not a bad way to handle it. And it's nicer than reminding us all that the McCain campaign has been inept, not not cynical.

This column from a liberal Israelis calls out the hawks, which are the problem in both countries. George Schultz called for serious discussions on a movement toward peace and paid a price. The hawks in both countries want more more with less diplomacy, look at Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1004894.html

Caterpillar fashion
By Gideon Levy
Tags: Caterpillar, Israel

Israel might be able to go on claiming that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, but it cannot do the same regarding another weapon of mass destruction: the bulldozer. The claim that terror has adopted an original new weapon, a "new fashion" as the public security minister put it, once again shows how convenient it is for us to present a one-sided and distorted picture.

The bulldozer as a destructive and even lethal weapon was not invented by the Palestinians. They are merely imitating an Israeli "fashion" that is as old as the state, or at least as old as the occupation. Let us forget for a moment the 416 villages Israel wiped off the face of the earth in 1948 - that was before there were D9 bulldozers - and focus on a more modern fashion. In Israel's hands the bulldozer has become one of the most terrifying weapons in the territories. The only difference between the Palestinians' murderous bulldozer and the Israeli bulldozer is in color and size. As usual, ours is bigger, much bigger. There is no similarity between the small backhoe the Palestinian terrorist was driving and the fearsome D9 driven by Israel Defense Forces soldiers.

From the dawn of the occupation, Caterpillar has been a major arms supplier to Israel, no less than those who provide planes, cannons and tanks. Not for nothing are peace activists trying to call for a boycott of the manufacturer. Israel has sown almost unimaginable destruction using heavy equipment. Go to Rafah, stopping in Khan Yunis on the way, and see the results of the destruction scattered there to this day. Whole neighborhoods razed, the contents of houses - possessions and memories - crushed under the treads. Have you ever seen a street after being "stripped" by a bulldozer?
...