1) Obama knows this and it epitomizes his strategy exactly, calling McCain out with out calling him names. Because it isn't sinking to claims of Cindy "Ma" McCain's mob ties, or McCain's giving of information to the Viet Cong to save his own miserable life in a POW camp, the media sees it as being soft. But Obama knows the differnce and is walking that fine line.

Yes, but what about the 100 or so Dems with TV time who are not Obama. I don't think they (or even Obama, really) are being aggressive. Or, maybe they are and they are just not doing it with the right language. A basic example: rather than saying something passive, like "Senator McCain is misrepresenting my view in that I actually said...blah, blah, blah." It would be nice to hear, about a GOP lie, "That is not true. It's not true." Then, follow up with an explanation. Don't call somebody a liar (even if they are), but be more verbally aggressive with the message.

I agree with you; it is a fine line, and I admire Obama for trying to walk it. Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party has not develop a reservoir of ideas that are both founded in a sense of justice and able to grab people at the cognitive and emotional levels. Let's give some credit to the GOP on this, they are much better. But, they've also been developing those magic phrases for 40 years. The Dems have lots of catching up to do in terms of generating core ideas for the 21st century, and in communicating them. Isn't this, in part, what George Lakoff and that crowd have been saying in academia?

I have a pet theory about this, the 3 second rule: the first 3 seconds of an answer (or point) constitutes about 75% of what people think about that answer (or point). Make the first 3 seconds clear, defining, and confident, and then add nuance. Start strong, end with nuance. Reversing the two is deadly in political communication.

A thought experiment; how many great political lines came more than 3 seconds into an answer? Not many.

2) He is likely avoiding it to keep from getting too into the legal scholarship that can distract a campaign in the media age. He knows that only sound bites get reported, so wasting a great deal of tme discussing the intracacies of the constitution and how the Bushies have violated it would not break through the white noise of the Media.

I did a poor job of stating my point, as I would certainly agree with you that he should avoid the intricacies of legal scholarship. However, I think throwing around Jefferson's name (or Washington, or Madison) would help counter this silly "Obama' not one of 'us'" meme that might strip away 1 or 2% of the vote. Something simple, like "I agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said..." or a short line in the stump speech like "Part of what makes America great is our Constitution, which has been emulated throughout the world."

Tie together, in a short, pithy, sound-biteable way, American leadership, Obama's deep-rooted American values, GOP corruption, and so on. He could even make the case that rule-of-law provides the security that investors seek, thereby playing up the economic benefits of constitutionalism.

There is a great deal of fertile ground here, and most of it could yield bounty without getting trapped in academic exercises. A good sound bite will be heard, taken into somebody's mind, and therein nourished with the mental soil available before it grows into an idea or concept.

What cognitive soil do the majority of Americans have available?

Democracy is good.

The Constitution is good.

God is good.

Fairness is good.

Government shouldn't screw us over. (Sorry, couldn't think of a better way to put it.)

The last 8 years have scored poorly in 4 of the 5 areas.

3)Saturday we get the Veep, and we'll see what they do. Hitting hard is supposed to be Veep's job so that the candidate can stay above the frey. McCain isn't waiting of course, which conventional wisdom suggests may hurt him come november. People want a leader not a cantankerous jerk in the whitehouse, and doing the dirty work yourself can leave a bad taste in Americans mouths.

We'll see.

Thanks for your thoughtful, if unsolicited, replies.

Finally, the Dems get a juicy piece o' meat that the press can run with (I mean, seriously, I don't know how many houses I have!), and then Obama steps on it by announcing that he's decided on a VP but just isn't telling. Arrghh!

Guess which one made it on CNN's homepage? He just stepped on his own story. We all know that a VP pick was coming this weekend. Why not shut up about it, let the "Houses" story develop some better legs and maybe even provide a stronger tailwind into the convention.

Having said that, I would like to thank Senator too-many-houses-to-count McCain for bringing a smile to so many faces.

First, a few lines of set-up.

Then, a photo composite of 99 ordinary Americans and one fabulously wealthy celebrity --- maybe Paris Hilton :)

Show the hundred people...

Voiceover: "John McCain thinks you aren't rich at $4 million per year"

A bunch of people move to one side of the screen.

Voiceover: "John McCain has so many beautiful homes, he's lost count."

More people move to the side.

Voiceover: "So, if you make over $5 million each year, or have seven luxurious houses, maybe you and John McCain have something in common. You do have seven houses, don't you?"

Show all of the people gone, except the "Paris" who hugs McCain and clinks champagne classes.

Voiceover (with an obvious on-screen split between McCain/Paris and the 99 ordinary people): "John McCain. Out of touch with America."

"...whom McCain hugs and with whom..."