I'm convinced that this ad wasn't targeted as voters. At least, it doesnt look like it's an effective appeal to voters to claim bias.

What I think the ad is supposed to be is an attack and a shaming of the media. It's mean to be a chiding and an insuation that 'better start attacking Obama and leave me alone! Otherwise, some people might think you're in the tank!'

They're counting on the press to buckle out of fear of being tarred as too 'liberal' and hoping they'll pull hard rightward toward McCain to avoid the attack. Sad thing is, as deferential as the media has been to Mr. Maverick, it just might work.

The problem isn't really the ads.

It's the fact that the media continues to essentially gives both free time AND credibility to the ads by playing them ad nauseum under the pretense of discussing the merits of the accusations of the ad. Which they usually end up turning into a discussion of 'Why can't Obama be less popular and likable? Doesn't he know that being that liked is just arrogant?'.

It's the ability of the right-wing to get a complicit media to swallow their talking points wholesale that's the problem.

The ads have only given the talking heads an excuse to repeat one of their favorite talking points which they've repeated ad nauseum to such ill effect. They just LOVE wondering if Obama just doesn't know his place.

Nevermind that McCain thinks he'll have solved the world energy crisis and food shortages, not to mention singlehandedly ended the War on Terror by the end of his first term. Of course that's not arrogant at all.

You know, I always love arguments like this, since it always assumes that all that massive tracking and coverage of Obama is positive by nature.

Forgetting that at least 75 percent of news coverage of Obama's trip overseas was lambasting him for being too 'arrogant', too 'presumptuous', acting too much like he's President already. Oh, and lets not forget not visiting the troops, the cad! Forgetting that the Pentagon themselves ended up suggesting not to to avoid making it look like a campaign stunt.

Seriously. That crap should have no place in any party. Good for Obama for speaking out against it.

It makes me sick to see any Dem have to resort to that kind of stuff.

1) Scads of Democrats seemingly willing to cut off their nose to spite their face by committing to voting for another 4 years of Repubilcan Presidency.

2) McCain's unwarranted 'Maverick' brand, despite having shucked away nearly everything that actually made him a 'Maverick' back in 2000 (he's got...what, the 2nd highest percentage of lockstep votes with his party and Bush?). He's adopted nearly every single Bush talking point and policy point since the start of his campaign, and still gets points for 'distancing' himself from Bush.

3) Media willingness to make this a 'referendum on Obama', and thus leaving McCain unscrutinized.

4) Insistences of him being 'exotic' and 'too popular outside of America', trying to cast him as somehow less American and less worthy of being an American leader.

5) Dog-whistling tactics like pushing his middle name, 'Muslim' insinuations, the 'dollar bill' ad (yes, McCain made such an ad before Obama commented on it and thus got accused of being the one race-baiting).

6) The trumping of 'experience' over 'judgment' (My view: Experience doesn't mean a whit when it consistently leads you to awful conclusions and solutions).

7) Various groups with an express interest in continuing to drive wedges into the Democratic Party

8) ....shall I go on?

I say this, even as someone who lost the heart to go in full force with Obama after his horrid, awful stance reversal on FISA. Because lets face it. If you're one of the people who got screwed over these last 8 years (read: most of the American Populace), McCain is only going to be a continuation of the same horrible things.

This issue isn't terribly new, despite the ad being so.

But between this and your post on Obama at the convention...how much of this was there in your discussion a few weeks ago about 'Why Can't Obama Put It Away?'?

You're seeing some of the salient things in ths campaign right now. The insistant painting of Obama as the 'other' and 'the brother', as well as the completely mindless overlooking of the real evidence of 'elitism' in our candidates.

I thought that they really overstretched themselves, between the odd attacks on 'community organizers' amongst other things, as well as the repeated, already old invocations of 9/11 that came off as heavyhanded.

Still...the media seems to already be characterizing it as a home-run (indeed, Associated Press seemed to already have their reaction piece to Palin's speech ready before the speech even went out, much like they did with Obama's speech), which may be the tipping point.

So....lets assume, like some here have, that Rhianna might have provoked the incident to begin with by hitting Chris Brown first. The difference here would be this:

Rhianna hit him.

Chris Brown beat her.

The stark difference in result is obvious here: no matter Rhianna's size, strength, weight relative to Chris Brown, regardless of what might have set the incident off: there's no excuse for what happened. She was brutalized enough to be hospitalized. If Chris Brown was hospitalized right back and showed nearly the same amount of injury and beating that she had, there might be something to be said about who started what and possible self-defense arguments.

But the difference is clear. Even if Rhianna was the first to hit, whatever kind of hit it was paled in comparison to what was received. Like someone said, you don't retaliate a kick to the shin by breaking someone's kneecap.