John McCain's "maverick" ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylJkmMR8Fek

Obama's very swift response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHN9bLCgF7k

I didn't even have to look at your link...I was there! And yes, it was great.

But this is what I meant to say to you in my last post: He does this all the time! He responds to ads almost immediately and really well! That very day when I was at his town hall meeting, I heard on the radio that JM had put out a new ad, and by the time I got home--a 20-minute car ride--Obama had put out a response ad! I mean, I had just left the guy! And it was really direct and pointed and strong. (Of course I can't for the life of me remember what it was about right now).

But I think many people just don't see this stuff if they are former HRC supporters b/c they are really finding the JM talking points really resonant. And the media picks up on that rather than BO's swift and strong responses b/c there's this larger audience for it--both the Repubs and the HRC diehards.

Anyway, I think you wanted HRC right? If yes, then I am encouraged that you are looking to move on, disappointed but pragmatic. I appreciate it.

Christ. It just really never stops, does it?

What's holding Obama back, in my opinion, is the reluctance of HRC supporters to embrace him. I think it is having a profound effect in the media b/c these voters are unwilling to forgive any realpolitik compromises Obama must make in order to be elected. I believe HRC supporters are particularly vulnerable to the very charges, ads, and media attention that are framed by John McCain--the elitism, the race baiting, the lack of experience, the empty suit--all rhetoric begun during the primary season. It doesn't even make sense that voters who bought into those storylines earlier would simply give up their perspective b/c somebody told them they now have a different candidate.

I am honestly not criticizing here, just pointing out what I see as truth. There is an audience wider than Republicans for the negative Obama memes, and the press always looks for larger audiences. While McCain faced the same problem early on, he has had time to bring most Repubs into the fold.

So, glyn46, when you say "Don't shoot the messenger," I get it, but you have to realize that Joan is perhaps part of the very reason Obama is not doing well (one among millions, not singling Joan out but explaining why it is relevant for readers to suggest she not belabor these themes like any old media might. She has a progressive mission, after all, with a progressive audience).

And I'd Rather Not Say, you're right that Obama should be crushing JM, but I'm afraid that the lack of an enthusiastic and unified Democratic crowd behind BO, half of whom respond with anger and delight at his obstacles and missteps, is a large part of the problem. It's the same old story, one described eloquently by Sans Prejudice: Dems don't really unify well. Although SP made us sound eccentric and independent and awfully cute, it is in fact why we don't win elections.

I think one of the reasons the racist/sexist camps have gotten their panties in a bunch is that people have been equating "making a racist comment" with "being a racist". Same thing with sexism. That "panties in a bunch" line is surely a bit sexist, or at least could be interpreted that way, but does that brand me "a sexist"? When we talk about race and gender, sometimes we cross the line. Sometimes the line moves. Sometimes the line is in different places for different people. We need to stop branding people as "a racist" or "a sexist" when they make a comment is IS racist or sexist.

It is entirely possible that Bill Clinton made a slightly racist comment or two over the course of the primary. Does that make him a racist? No.

Have I said a sexist thing in my life? Yes. Is it really worth it to brand me a sexist?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/08/links_6.html

From New York Magazine: Obama: ‘It’s Like These Guys Take Pride in Being Ignorant.’

It is counterproductive to rehash the racial mess for the millionth time. There are three months to go and Obama is not looking that great. The shiny newness has worn off, and we appear to be left with Barack "Bipartisan" Obama, who apparently will compromise on just about anything. Great. We got a Congress full of Dems like that already. (Oh right, he's one of them.)

Where is the fire in the belly? Where is anyone in the Obama campaign calling McCain and Rove on all their crap? Where is the Obama who refused to be told to "wait his turn," who is obviously a savvy and very driven guy, or he wouldn't be where he is?

It's not past politics holding Obama back. It's the Dem presidential campaign disease. While the Republicans are throwing all the slime they can muster, the Dems are doing the usual: wrapping up the candidate so tight that no one ever sees a flash of the real person. They send a piece of cardboard out there and are shocked when the Republican "you can't relate to him" strategy works.

Who wants to elect (or relate to) a boring milquetoast? I'm flashing back to Kerry and Gore big time, and it is making me sick. The last Dem to win the office? Bill Clinton, who got elected flaws and all. It goes without saying that all efforts to control him fail regularly. If Bill and Hillary can go out and play hardball on Obama's behalf, it could be exactly what he needs.

I am hoping the convention is a turning point away from the stupidity of the primary. I want to see Obama bring it, and take on the Republicans and their petty and demeaning campaign in a big way. It is said that Hillary was convinced Obama could not win. Right now he is in serious danger of proving her right.