"Setting up an excuse" is a strategy that makes sense in games where the stakes of the game and the danger of embarrassment are roughly the same size.

But when you're running for POTUS, the stakes of the game are huge, and excuses are comparatively worthless.

In a game with stakes of this size, it would be *really* foolish to do something that would predictably hurt your chances of winning in order to "set up an excuse."

Since Billy isn't dumb, he knows all this. So I'm figuring that he doesn't really think Obama was setting up an excuse -- I figure he's saying it just to stir the pot. Since it's a slow news day, we ought to be grateful.

Obama has been whipped before when he didn't expect it. Just beating Clinton for control of the Party has been quite an accomplishment. He'd rather be the candidate than President if he has to choose.

Ok. Obama may bottle it - not have the guts, fire, hunger. That's possible. But I don't think anyone seriously thinks if he loses he's well set-up for 2012. You said it - lose this one, you're old news in 2012. Yes, he wants to own the party machinery now, I think, but because it sucks so bad when left to its own devices.

Here's my issue. Some people play it cool - in politics, or in sports. But that personality-type is a mystery to me. I'll take 3 shots to the jaw, but that's my limit - the gloves get dropped. But I've seen hockey players - and politicians and political advisors - who ran cooler. And Obama appears to me to be one of them. It irritates me, but I've seen it work. JFK had it. Ali had it. They let the other guy overextend, throw their stuff, until everyone watching knows 100% for sure that the other guy will say or do anything - is the aggressor. And then - BANG. One short sharp jab to the chin, and the other guy's down. It could be in one ad, one debate, one event, I donno. But there'll be lots of chances, McCain just IS a hothead- which has weaknesses.

Being cool can be risky though. You can get painted - like Kerry - and never recover. Or you may not have it in you to throw that well-timed, well-placed shot. But still... it CAN work. The best political advisor up North here is pure Obama. Lean, cool, always calm, razor-sharp analyst. But I played hockey with him. Never saw him throw a punch all year, then... championship game.... got taunted by the other team's nastiest guy, a punk like McCain. And took him out - right out of the blue. And it was so shocking when he did, everyone knew the game was over, right there. And he does the same in elections. 3 for 3 so far. Sets the stage, holds the reins, then.... bang. I just hope Obama's got that Ali, JFK thing - and isn't a Kerry or Gore, who, I think we'd agree, didn't have it when the chips were down.

And why are Progressive bloggers like Josh Marshall beating the racism drum?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And it's not duck baiting to call it daffy.

I don't understand how what looks to be McCain's approach to Obama is any different than the approaches taken by the GOP against two white guys in 2000 and again 2004. Sleazy yes, but I don't think it helps anyone to suggest that trying to portray Obama as an out-of-touch elitist is racist. I know Josh quotes a fellow reader on the front page who quotes Gergen this morning as suggesting that the McCain camp is using code. Dunno, most of us were there in 2000 and 2004, and this kind of slimeball regular guy attack seems GOP 101. Can somebody who sees racism explain what I'm missing?

In any event, excuse for defeat or not, Democrats including the Obama campaign and its captive creative class of bloggers should just back off and at least try not to lose thing. Obama needs to be focusing on the economy and the cost of just getting by and then some. He should be talking to workers. He should be touting infastructure until it hurts. He needs domestic focus. If this election turns out to be a referendum on racebaiting, Democrats lose. It's starting to be a bit irritating. Good thing it's only August.

Obama and his supporters need a mantra.

"We do not speak of race. We do not see racisim." In their minds, racism should not exist in this election. When asked if something is racist, the quick and reactionary answer should be no, it's not, and let the questioner know that they do not think in racial terms. It may all be a lie, but if Obama doesn't adopt that strategy, he will lose this election.

I happen to think the ad is racist -- only to suggest that the black man is comin' for your women. But that won't fly in a GE. it worked against Clinton because most Democrats are conditioned don't want to appear racist at all. We beleive that those who call out racism, for the most part, have a point. But the other side -- and they make up most of the voting public -- don't think the point is valid. And very few things infuriate them more than when someone assigns racism to, well, anything.

The reason the ad has legs isn't because it's a racist ad, it's because Obama's people keep telling everyone it's a racist ad. And they look at it and say, "I don't see it," and then they think "is this the way it's going to be? Every little thing is about race?" and then McCain looks better to them.

Here is a highly subjective and unprovable point. While we may not beleive this to be true, I think most white Americans think the playing feild has been leveled. They do not think racism is as persuasive as it used to be. So when something they consider innocuous is labled racist, they react negativly to it. It makes them wonder what is enough -- at one point are they supposed to stop feeling guilty?

One of the things the pundits have said is that every time race gets into the conversation, Obama loses. I think they are right about that.