"What is this guy trying to do, run for President of the United States?" asked one detractor. "We insist that he confine himself to championing the liberal blogosphere and let the entire Fox News viewership define him through caricatures of his positions and associations."

Some Clinton supporters feel that these caricatures supported and sometimes created by Fox News have been a boon to their candidate.

"We've painted Obama into a "liberal" box and we would appreciate it if he'd stay there," one critic said.  "If he starts stepping up his public efforts to engage voters to the right of people like Michael Moore, we're going to have a lot harder time dismissing him as a Michael Dukakis sort of candidate.  This guy is a liberal elitist and the sooner he accepts that the better it will be for all of us who don't support his candidacy."

There is also frustration among some that Obama may be trying to live up to one of the major claims of his campaign--that he will attempt to overcome party divisions to create a productive dialogue and maybe get some things done for the country.

"We've tried really hard to dispel this notion that Obama will transcend party lines and reach across the aisle to get things done," said one frustrated detractor. "The fact that Republicans like Lincoln Chaffee, Chuck Hagel, and Colin Powell have had complimentary things to say about this guy hasn't helped our efforts, and this adult conversation with Chris Wallace of Fox News isn't helping, either."

The interview also fueled criticisms of Obama for lacking "toughness."

"Being tough is about fighting and bickering with people who don't share your views.  You either shut them out or you call them names.  Otherwise, you might end up doing something like passing health-care reform legislation or having a consistent stance on foreign policy."

In fact, this problem Obama has with the traditional red and blue divide to some represents a larger problem he has.

"When an outfit like Fox News is trying to polarize a debate, to reaffirm the kind of partisanship that's defined our politics in recent years, the way to deal with that is to bolster that perception by taking your ball and going home, or going on the air and calling them mean Republican stupid-heads," the critic suggested.  "This approach also makes it easier for us to call Sen. Obama a whiner or a wimp whenever he objects to Republican talking points."

Since Sen. Clinton has turned against progressives and threatened to "obliterate" the nation of Iran and anyone near it in her attempts to court more moderate voters, her supporters are upset that Obama may be trying to address moderates with a less divisive purpose in mind.

"If Obama starts addressing the general electorate, launching 50-state voter registration drives, and working with the Democratic Party to win the election in November, what does that mean for Sen. Clinton, who is still calling for another primary debate with Obama in the hopes of convincing voters that she's still a viable candidate?"

Indeed, to some it seemed Sen. Obama was intentionally trying to move past the contentiousness of the primary campaign and into the general election.

"I mean, Jesus, when Sen. Clinton started consorting with the Republican Party at least she was using them to try to damage Sen. Obama," said one critic. "But Obama was even civil to the Clintons and their supporters in this interview, suggesting that maybe they weren't trying to be racially polarizing in the primary campaign. What's he trying to do, reconcile the intraparty factions and strive for unity in the fall?"

So rather than follow the MSM's lead and keep talking about what does or does not render Obama vulnerable in a general election against McCain, let's turn the focus to why McCain could be in serious trouble against Obama.

Now I'm not talking in this case about the most obvious advantages Obama is likely to enjoy against McCain.  Things like fundraising ability, voter turnout, grassroots infrastructure, etc.  I'm also not referring at the moment to the fact that McCain is 71 years old and must run, to some extent at least, on the failures of George W. Bush.  No, I'm talking about McCain's liberal-elitist problem.

Just do a Google search on "john mccain liberal" and you'll see what I'm talking about.  You can follow one of the links from the first five hits, say Matthew A. Roberts' April 13 piece in the National Ledger, and see McCain mentioned in the same breath with people like Mao, Stalin, Castro, and even (gasp) John Kerry!  These question marks about McCain are already out there, and argue strongly against his electability in the fall!

If Democrats are worried about McCain using the criticisms of Hillary Clinton as an especially effective weapon against Obama, maybe they should also recognize the equally ripe opportunities to use conservatives' criticisms of McCain against him.  To do so does not have to validate the conservative agenda, but only emphasize that John McCain is unsuitable as a Republican candidate. 
What's equally important, though, is the fact that the right's recognition of McCain's flip-flop toward the right on every issue from the militarism to gay marriage to abortion also reveals his claims to the mantle of centrist maverick to be fradulent.  McCain doesn't represent a maverick centrism any more than he represents cultural conservatism.  And maybe he could have run as the leftist in the race if he hadn't turned against his liberal voting record!  His positions are faux liberal because he breathes the cultural elitist vapors of his wife's vast fortunes.  With all due respect to John Kerry, you would almost think he and John McCain were the same person!  (I'm being somewhat facetious here, of course, but you get my point about how dangerously close McCain is to painting himself into political no-man's land.)

So conservatives have it right: John McCain is a faux liberal elitist who is trying to masquerade, by flip-flopping on central issues, as a Republican.  And there is nothing centrist about him, either.  He flips over that particular heartland of the polical spectrum entirely.  What he tries to sell as centrism is merely the rarified political vacuum of a candidate with no real values. 

As counterintuitive as it might seem to Democrats, Obama needs to throw the label of liberal elite right back at John McCain and then point out that for all his efforts he's not even very good at that.  Obama should be absolutely incredulous to the notion that any such label belongs with him.  Obama is the candidate of common-sense progressivism.  (And anyone who really understands progressivism at all knows full well that it's anything but elitist.) 

Common-sense progressivism is an accurate characterization that upholds Obama's ideals and record, but also highlights his appeal to independent voters.  And there's no shortage of his positions to back this up.  (For a different post, but examples could include his much-endorsed foreign-policy pragmatism and his pay-go fiscal responsibility.*) 

This label also reminds people of what should be self-evident: Pragmatic progressive politics and liberal-elitism are not the same thing.  Barack Obama promises the former.  John McCain is a failed example of the latter.
----------------------

* Just today McCain said that tax cuts were more important than balancing the budget!

The Matthews piece I mention above can be found at http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=4925

In making a decision about whom to endorse, Bloomberg said he is not trying to decide which one of the three matches up with him ideologically, but wants to know which one is "willing to face reality and say 'We can't have everything, and there are costs and we've got to make choices."'

"Some of the things they'll be in favor of, I'll agree with, some of the things they'll be in favor of, I won't, but at least we'll have an adult in office who can lead and can accomplish something," he said.