I'm down with your points, Ezra. It looks like it's dawning on you and others (like Digby) that we may lose this election the way we've lost all the others: through the GOP's lies and smears and brilliant manipulation of the basest parts of the American character. Steve Schmidt is the new Karl Rove. The king is dead; long live the king. You might want to ask your buddy Yglesias if he's still as sanguine about an Obama victory now as he was, oh, last week, when he kept urging calm.

Maybe my pessimism is misplaced, and Obama's turnout machine will win the day. But I'm beginning to suspect that only the Clintons know how to beat the Republicans. As odious as Bill Clinton was during the primaries, he may have been right to describe us Obama supporters as believers in a "fairy tale."

I think this analysis is a little too partisan. Perhaps we should just acknowledge that it's EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to effectively impugn the character of a man whose (admittedly admirable) military service has been mythologized by the commentariat.

Liberals have a tendency to blame the media for indulging this record, but it's not really the media's fault. If McCain agrees with his wonderful reputation and Barack Obama agrees with his wonderful reputation, who are they to argue?

The problem with such analyses is that I think they ignore recent history. Take a look at what happened to Wesley Clark for making the logically correct point that a person's military history is not a sufficient qualification for being President. 24/7 bullshit that's what. The same thing times seven would happen if Obama himself were to start in on that line of attack. Perhaps through sheer will and numbers, by sending out attack dog after attack dog after attack dog, you can crack that wall, but you'll probably take a lot of damage while doing it. You're fighting on John McCain's territory and he has the higher ground to fire from. In other words, Barrack Obama (and pretty much any politician who'll come up to bat) has to agree or they'll get raked immediately over the coals. And don't you go thinking this is an Obama thing, because Clinton would have been in the same mess on that score; the Democrats have been screwing the pooch on this for years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpcxkKlEFA

McCain is an interesting GOP candidate in that he is both the worst and best they could have put up. Worst because he didn't really connect with the base (although his recent attacks on Obama may have shored up that wall of defense.) The best because he'll get most unthinking reflexive support from media members quaking to lick his boots. Mitt Romney would probably get a fairer share than a robot without principles would, but even so he'd probably have done much worse in this race because he hadn't spend a decade cultivating friendships and relationships in the world of the media elite. Many of these people (not all) have his back and they will protect him for as long as possible.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070011

He's a war hero to them; if you want to attack him on that, build a time machine, go back to the early 1990s and then attack him; doing so now is playing the wrong cards.

It is extremely difficult to impugn the character of a man when you constantly vouch for his good character. Obama and his campaign and surrogates need to stop prefacing every mention of McCain which paeans to his patriotism and service. They needed to stop doing this a year ago.

Here's how this election has gone for the past two months: the McCain campaign makes a false or malicious character attack against Obama. The Obama campaign responds by praising McCain's patriotism and character and saying that the attack is beneath him. The takeaway: Obama's character is questionable and McCain's character is exemplary. What is wrong with these guys?

The time has come to begin the season of merciless attacks on McCain. Foreign policy: he is hot-headed and prone to panic. On the economy: he is a rich elitist and out of touch. His service and patriotism? There really is no need for anyone on Obama's team to mention these again. Don't preface your attacks with praise. Attack!

Don't preface your attacks with praise. Attack!

To be honest, I really, really thought that Obama was just talking about being the candidate of "a new kind of politics" because he needed cover to insulate himself from perceptions as the "angry black man." I'm now starting to worry that he really believes all of this stuff, and that his moments of viciousness ("You're nice enough, Hillary" and "It's like they're proud of being ignorant") are moments where he "loses control" before becoming ashamed of himself for engaging in such behavior. He may still prove me wrong, but I can't help but think that he's been drinking his own kool-aid.

I don't disagree with this too much, but the post assumes that the same rules apply to Republicans, particularly when it comes to a certified member of the club.

And I agree with Josh R. Look at how fierce the pushback from the commentariat was when Wesley Clark said something that was obviously true: being shot down was not in and of itself a qualification to be president. I have few illusions that a takedown of McCain along the lines you imagined could have worked--possibly not against any Republican, definitely not against McCain.

When will Democrats learn to engage in some good, hearty character assassination? There's plenty of material- divorcing his crippled first wife, shifting positions, a possible affair with a lobbyist (NY Times idk???), his absolutely hypocritical and despicable acceptance of torture as utilized by the Bush administration. Why can't they go for the jugular? Why can't they play dirty? I'm sorry if this is overly impassioned, but I am SO SO tired of seeing Democrats battered and defamed, and all they can say in return is, "Well, you know, that's not really true..."

Rob Mac expresses my sentiments exactly.

And after running that type of campaign for so long, it'll take a readjustment period: the GOP will respond with their typical faux outrage, and rather than backdown - as is the SOP for the Dems (eg. Wesley Clark), they have to stick it out with a line like "yah, the truth's a bitch, ain't it?"

The explanation (TM) of why the democrats have such a hard time impugning the character of opponents: Because they were trained by Clinton, his media infrastructure, and themselves to say that all that matters is that you are "for the poor", or "for minorities". You can get character on the cheap that way, by taking the right positions. How you behave toward individuals has nothing to do with your character. In fact, there IS no such thing as your character. Only your positions make you good or bad. Got it? That has to be unlearned, which can only happen with a thorough regurgitation of Clintonism. But it might take a generation for Clintonism to pass, like a tapeworm, through the body of American liberalism. Once it passes, progressives will again be able to address and assess the behavior of adversaries.

Senator McCain's advertising refers to him as "the original maverick". Why have the media not called him on that barefaced lie?

The derivation of the term itself as a political label is homage to former Texas Congressman and San Antonio Mayor Maury Maverick, who entered the House of Representatives shortly before John Sidney McCain, III was conceived.