McCain was deathly afraid of the speeches of Obama, so they made it a bad thing. McCain talks about how he can motivate and inspire, well that is exactly what Obama did with his speeches. He needs to uplift people, to get people excited.

Obama was tricked tonight (Saddleback Discussion), and has been being tricked all cycle. They call him out for not speaking specifics, and then when he does, McCain goes all folksy answering nothing but telling stories.

GO BACK TO THE BIG EXCITING SPEECHES. Remember the youtube vid of people parading though the streets in excitement after Obama's speech (I want to say in out doors in Philly). That is what wins elections - this was proof positive tonight. McCain says nothing and he gets praised because he won the room. Obama has crowds eating out the palm of his hand, impassioned, ready to change the world.

Obama has let McCain define him and the narrative and it's a mistake. He's acting like he needs to disprove he is a celebrity by talking about issues and only issues - it was a perfectly set trap. Let the policy wonks read about the issues on your website, this GE isn't about the issues. McCain wants to tell stories and get people to vote for the old timer as a feel good story.

The McCain Campaign has taken away Obama's strength and made it a "dirty word".   Obama needs to reclaim it, and celebrate it.    

Snippet from today's Political Radar:

A Republican strategist speaking on the condition of anonymity reacted to the Caldwell comments by telling ABC News: "My advice to the Obama people: 'proceed with extreme caution.' They don't want to get into a discussion of character and background. They are opening a door that they will not be able to close. They are putting on the table issues and personalities that they do not want to discuss."

Asked which personalities? The GOP strategist cited the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and former Obama law partners.

Now I don't think anybody believes the McCain Camp is not going to bring up Rev. Wright, it's not a question of "if" but "when".  What about the Obama camp bringing it up themselves?  That way they control more of the story, as opposed to letting the McCain camp decide when to play it as an issue.  Because if you are hoping the McCain camp won't "go there" you are incredibly naive, and if you are waiting for him to play it, don't expect it until late October. 

Wouldn't it be better getting it out of the way as an issue now?  So it will lack the election day bite the McCain camp hopes it has by releasing it days before voting day. 

Ideally it would have been best to bring it up during the Olympics, but the media would have seen through that.  So going forward, when would be the best time? It would have to be post Dem Convention, but before the first debate.

What about during the week of the GOP convention? Still too transparent? Would that be giving too much of a potential bump to McCain?

When would be the best time?

Also how would you go about doing it? Have a speech titled "Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers" where he talked about each in length and depth?

I assume Obama will be asked about Wright tomorrow at the Rick Warren summit.  Maybe that could be the impetus for another address down the line

Or leave McCain to play the Rezko and Ayers card because you have the Keating Five and Liddy/Abortion Bombers counter attacks if necessary. 

Now McCain does have a Pastor problem of his own in Rod Parlsey and John Hagee.  However even the staunchest Obama supporter has to agree it's not nearly as damning as Rev. Wright is for Obama.  I think the best way to use Parsley and Hagee against McCain show him as using their endorsments as baldly political.  Using religion as nothing more than a tool to help him win an election.  

If Obama gets out in front of the Reverend Wright issue and plays it when he chooses to and on his own terms he really could mitigate the damage.  He could simply say he wants to address Reverend Wright to the much larger GE audience and get it out out the way.  It would take a huge bullet out of the McCain arsenal and at best Obama could get credit for bringing it up himself. 

So whaddaya think?  Good strategy?

According to a Marc Ambinder blog this afternoon -

The selection of ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention comes on the heels of a secret, last-minute effort to convince Warner to submit his name and record for vice presidential vetting.

Sources close to Warner say that the Virginia Senate candidate was subject to fairly intense pressure by Obama advisers to allow the team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy to open an account and begin their work.

Warner resisted, citing, as he has done publicly, family concerns and his public pledge to Virginians.

Full blog available here - CLICK ME

Many have said he would have been the best pick, and it was hard to argue with that sentiment. Alas it wasn't meant to be.  By giving Warner the valuable keynote speaker spot, he's basically sending the message that Warner is his pick in 2016, given Warners age and credentials. This also means that it is unlikely that Obama is picking an younger VP, because in most instances that person would be Obama's defacto pick to replace him at the end of his second term. 

I understand why Warner made his decision, but Obama/Warner would have been a helluva ticket.  Warner has the stability that he wants for his young family by winning the Virginia senate seat, and could reasonably keep it as long as he wanted it. In four(dread) or eight years time he could run for President as his own man and off of his own record.   If he ran with Obama and they lost, Warner would effectively be locked out of Virginia politics with Webb, Kaine and whomever won the vacant senate seat there for the next while.  Also he probably doesn't want his young family growing up in the White House spotlight.

Graduate Student originally blogged on this very article, but since he/she quoted the whole of the article it's against terms and services and I want to get this article noticed and hopefully passed around.  I certainly appreciate that they brought it to my and our attention.

McCain adviser got money from Georgia

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.

McCain warned Russian leaders Tuesday that their assault in Georgia risks "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm.

"Scheunemann's work as a lobbyist poses valid questions about McCain's judgment in choosing someone who - and whose firm - are paid to promote the interests of other nations," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "So one must ask whether McCain is getting disinterested advice, at least when the issues concern those nations."

Click HERE for the rest of the article

This quote from the piece is really telling -

While their politics coincide, Russia's invasion of Georgia casts a spotlight on Scheunemann's business interests and McCain's conduct as a senator.

Scheunemann's firm lobbied McCain's office on four bills and resolutions regarding Georgia, with McCain as a co-sponsor or supporter of all of them.

In addition to the 49 contacts with McCain or his staff regarding Georgia, Scheunemann's firm has lobbied the senator or his aides on at least 47 occasions since 2001 on behalf of the governments of Taiwan and Macedonia, which each paid Scheunemann and his partner Mike Mitchell over half a million dollars; Romania, which paid over $400,000; and Latvia, which paid nearly $250,000. Federal law requires Scheunemann to publicly disclose to the Justice Department all his lobbying contacts as an agent of a foreign government.

The Obama campaign should really push this story because it shows how dangerous McCain's deep lobbyist ties can be.  I mean McCain seems to be wanting to pick a fight with Russia because of some Georgian lobbyist has bought his ear. 

(crosses fingers that formatting worked)