Latest Gallup tracking poll shows Obama leading McCain 45-44. With the Republican brand in the dumpster and the winds of change howling, McCain should be eating Obama's dust. He's not.

After accomplishing what Republicans never could (stopping the Clinton machine) and fresh off of a successful overseas trip, Obama still can't crack 50 percent.

One theory is that voters aren't thrilled with either candidate, however the lack of a lion's share of support for Barack is eclipsed by the media's hysteria. There is a likely uncertainty in the electorate when it comes to Obama, an unknown. A Fox News poll recently showed a third of Independents still undecided.

This is good news for McCain, who still has a fighting chance. As long as he keeps pushing out gimmicks and unserious messages (the fake press passes for the media not covering Obama's world tour, the techno video comparing Obama to David Hasselhoff, etc.) his chances lessen. Lambasting Obama for being a "celebrity" while comparing him to Paris Hilton is not an effective theme. It's infantile, in fact. This is campaign for the Presidency of the United States, not class President of Ridgemont High.

We know what Obama's real weaknesses are. The low poll numbers reflect that. What voters don't know are John McCain's strengths. And there are many.

Campaigns can go on the offensive, and often go negative. But they must give Americans a reason to vote for their candidate. That's what we have yet to see from the McCain campaign. We're waiting.

Last year at this time John McCain was in a bad way. His campaign was broke. His message was broken. And he had gotten away from who he was fundamentally as a candidate. One year later the problem isn't that McCain is broke. The problem is John McCain, well, isn't John McCain.

When he purged his campaign of staffers last summer, some who did him well, many who ran his campaign into the ground, one thing happened. McCain was forced to regain his mojo and returned to the role he relishes: underdog who says and does what he wants because it's right, not because a Gallup poll indicates he should. He started carrying his own bag, flying coach, and best of all: he was back to being himself. It's because of this rebirth that he was able to win New Hampshire, and ultimately the Republican nomination.

Now that he's the nominee many are asking where that fiesty, burn-down-the-house John McCain has gone. When Obama was meeting with troops in Iraq, McCain was complaining he wasn't getting enough coverage from an Obama smitten press corps. He was ticked that the New York Times didn't run his oped. Since when is McCain a whiner? Since his handlers said he should be, I suppose.

Um, John? Are you there?

In fact, the last two weeks McCain's handlers have done a better job of promoting their own personal brands than the brand of their candidate. Any political operative knows that when consultants or staffers become the story, it's never a good thing. And someone who has been in politics over two decades should know it too.

Hello? John, where are you?

Back is the flashy transportation, the regurgitated, sarcastic campaign talking points, and the gimmicky press props and Youtube videos that are the furthest thing from John McCain's persona. McCain is known for straight talk, not snide talk.

This week was an opportunity for McCain to hit Obama on domestic issues and force him to respond on foreign soil, particularly on oil and drilling when Obama was in the Middle East.

McCain's handlers would suit him best by laying off the media, getting back to the maverick message and staying out of his stories. If the Mac wants to show America he can make real change happen he should start with his own campaign.

For months Republicans have been taunting Senator Barack Obama for not visiting Iraq. From press releases to countdown clocks, it's been a key theme and it's put Obama on the defensive. The GOP has also been hitting him hard for not supporting the McCain surge that has proved fruitful, though not originally popular.

So what does Obama do? He goes to Afghanistan. Then Iraq. He meets with leaders in these countries and talks with soldiers. His aides have scripted him carefully, positioned him wisely and kept him away from any goofy looking hats to prevent another Dukakis-tank photo gaffe.

In an interesting turn of events, German magazine Der Spiegel Saturday quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Obama who has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected. Though Ali al-Dabbagh, the chief spokesman for al-Maliki, said in a statement Sunday that the prime minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately," Der Spiegel is sticking to its story.

Al-Maliki has now given enormous cover to Obama and allowed him to pivot around McCain. The one issue Obama should be on the defensive about has effectively put McCain in a corner. There's no question that Obama has altered his position on Iraq troop withdrawal. What was once a rigid promise to pull troops out is well, still a rigid plan for to pull troops out--with a new timetable. There's also no question Barry doubted the surge would decrease violence. He believed it would do the converse. But that conversation is now stale.

Part of the problem is the McCain team's insistence on playing "gotcha" on the success of the surge. McCain's message has remained unchanged: "the surge has worked, the surge has worked." It has worked. But, the next question -- the more important question -- is: "Now that we are winning, are we done here yet?" Americans have a tradition of de-mobilizing too fast from costly wars (post-WW2, we created problems in Berlin, Korea and elsewhere because we simply got rid of the Army so fast). Democracies tire of long wars. Obama will be on the side of American sentiment by saying we need to get out faster. Now that our friends in Baghdad agree with him on the withdrawal plan, he no longer looks like he is completely out of touch with the situation on the ground.

Obama could even go as far as to acknowledge the surge has worked, and that he made a mistake and it would likely do no harm except for another minor exacerbation from the far left (though it's highly unlikely he'd admit wrongdoing. He, after all, "never doubts himself"). Obama can be vague about whether he is sticking to the 16 months, he just needs to make it clear that he will go faster than McCain.

The McCain camp dared Obama to come to Iraq. So he did. And while Obama is discussing the best way to bring the troops home, McCain is whining about the New York Times not publishing his most recent oped on Iraq. Obama: "Let's bring the troops home safely." McCain: "Waaaaahhhhh!" Chess verses checkers. Which do you think Americans care more about?

Instead McCain should seize the opportunity to highlight that Obama has seen the advantages to his proposals for Iraq, which means security for the region that will allow the US to focus on security threats elsewhere, like Afghanistan. This shows that there is hope for bipartisan solutions. McCain's message should be: "Now it's time for Senator Obama to change his position and follow me on energy policy and drilling."

If Obama can make it through this overseas trip without a stumble, controversy or policy goof, he is poised to remove McCain's biggest criticism by turning the tables while McCain appears vulnerable on his biggest strength.

Not exactly a checkmate, but a sign that McCain needs to step up his game.

 

McCain and his people did not go negative this week, they went whiney.

Obama 's trip is proving to be a tacit recognition that that McCain was right all along about the surge.

As if stridently crying "it's not fair, " McCain and his handlers are demanding that Obama admit that the surge worked.

While whining is a form of advocacy favored by third graders and liberals, it does not suit a Republican Presidential candidate. Here is a better message for McCain:

• Obama's recent comments prove that he is recognizing the advantages of John McCain's proposals for Iraq.

• This is good, because bipartisan consensus in the Senate will mean improved security for the region, and our nation.

• Now, John McCain hopes to persuade Obama on energy issues as he did on Iraq.

• John McCain has proposed the Lexington Project, an ambitious plan that will break America's dependence on foreign oil, and improve the environment.

• Senator Obama in contrast, proposes crippling energy taxes that will destroy jobs, hurt investments and continue our thirst for foreign oil. Remember Barack Obama, you can't fill your tank with a tax.

This message is strong without being shrill and will make McCain look like a leader.

Ever since former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney dropped out of the race for President it seems he's pivoted to another race: the one for Vice President. Whether he is floating his own name (a common political move) or there is actual interest there from the McCain camp, this is one bandwagon I'm not jumping on.

As a candidate for President, Romney never truly garnered a groundswell of support (the eleventh hour rally from popular conservatives like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham was more of an anti-McCain push than pro-Romney, and appeared as such). Evangelicals were suspicious of his Mormon faith. Social conservatives were uneasy about his past positions, and fiscal conservatives worried about the legitimacy of his tax cutting, anti-spending credentials. He spent an estimated $97 million dollars, $43 million of it his own, and made little headway until the primary trail took him to Michigan, where he road his father's coattails.

I don't think McCain will pick him, nor should he. McCain shouldn't pick any of the primary contenders. If they were strong candidates then they would be in McCain's position right now. But as the presumptive leader of the Republican party McCain is able to select Romney for the position of Chairman of the Republican National Committee. This makes sense because of the two crucial qualities that are RNC requirements: money and message.

As a fundraiser, Romney is effective. His venture capitalist background provides financial channels to deep pockets. He's also a great spokesperson. He's telegenic, attractive and can deliver a disciplined message. Plus he's an excellent manager, which is what the ailing GOP needs: a leader who gets everyone singing off the same song sheet with a theme that works.

The sooner McCain appoints Romney the better. Then maybe we can stop listening to him dodge questions about the vice presidency that he "doesn't want" and start providing answers to questions about the future of the party that we desperately need.

The success we're seeing today in Iraq is great news for the country and the world, but bad news for Democrats. What does that tell you? There is no question the Bush Administration has made grave errors and estimations. But the surge is working, thanks to McCain, who bucked the White House and pushed for a new strategy of increased troop levels. What did Obama say about the surge? Let's rewind:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse," Obama urged.

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake.

Now he's in a pickle. His base wants him to continue his pledge to yank troops out ASAP. But things are going well in Iraq, and he's making a mad dash to the middle so he's changed his position on withdrawl, infuriating the left. To stop the bleeding he penned an editorial for the New York Times on Monday titled: "My Plan for Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

How very foolish to state a plan considering he hasn't been to Iraq in over 900 days. It's as responsible as a doctor recommending surgery to a patient they have never seen.

Will he change his position again once he returns from Iraq and pen another editoral? Perhaps more appropriately named, "What I Learned in Iraq?" In fact, WHAT is his position? Nobody can articulate it. No campaign staff, surrogates or even the great orator himself.

But an Obama supporter took at stab at it on MSNBC today during a debate segment opposite yours truly. He argued that Obama doesn't need to visit Iraq to get an idea of what is going on, mainly because he'll be surrounded by troops the entire time who are naive. Yes, you read it correctly. Naive.

See for yourself:

RICHARD GOODSTEIN: well, look, there are plenty of advisors on sensible policy in iraq who aren't included among our military leaders in iraq, with all due respect to general petraeus. there are plenty of people who have been on the ground, who are moving through there, who are either in the military, former military, or knowledgeable in the area that can give him plenty of advice. so the notion that somehow the only, you know, sort of basis you have for giving advice is to be there?

GOODSTEIN: i don't really think that's kind of a widespread view.

BRZEZINSKI: yeah, and i mean, you could also argue john mccain when he went to iraq was under such heavy security, how could he get a realistic view of what's on the ground.

GOODSTEIN: actually, i think andrea must be receiving the obama talking points by mistake.

TANTAROS: I doubt that, richard.

TANTAROS: and obama had seven on iraq and he hasn't been over there in 900 days. it was very foolish for him to write the editorial and put it in ""the new york times"" for his plan for iraq when he hasn't been there. you have to admit.

GOODSTEIN: honestly, i don't think the litmus test for whether somebody can have an informed view is to have sort of basically have your feet on the ground. as mika said herself, i sort of made the point when john mccain was there, we saw, he was surrounded by troops. when -- they had to clear out that market for him and lindsey graham to walk through.

TANTAROS: and he knows what's going on, wouldn't you agree? the troops know what's going on.

GOODSTEIN: WELL, NO, BECAUSE THE TROOPS HAVE A VERY NAIVE VIEW OF WHAT'S GOING ON. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC, THE U.S. INTERESTS.

OH, riiight. The troops don't know what's happening, Senators on Capitol Hill do. They're so in touch. Specifically one in particular who is running for President, who hasn't been there in years. Why visit Iraq when you can read the New York Times?! (This is the same logic as questioning why travel when you subscribe to Bon Voyage magazine?)

What's more nauseating is when liberals insult and seek to discredit the troops to promote their puzzling arguments. These are the same troops serving in the US military who are risking their lives so that we can broadcast our opinions (no matter how perverse) from MSNBC on live TV without bombs being lobbed at the building. The men and women of our brave military who are talking to Iraqis on the ground, helping to make their neighborhoods safer in over 100 degree heat. The same men and women who are on their second or third tour of duty, many who have been in Iraq from day one, fighting terrorism for years so that we can reap the progress we are seeing today.

To say that our troops on the ground have a naive view is flagrantly disrespectful. The only time the word naive should be used is when it's describing Senator Obama's approach to foreign affairs, national security and terrorism.

Liberals will never learn. They continue to ignore the progress, fail to credit our troops and sling insults and arrogance to paint a picture of doom and gloom because that will better suit their party at the polls. Victory against Republicans trumps victory against terrorism. An interesting campaign strategy, indeed.

I'll be on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes tonight at 9pm ET discussing John McCain and Barack Obama's speeches to the NAACP today.

Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is planning a visit to Europe to bolster his flimsy foreign policy credentials next week. There's been talk of a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, where Ronald Reagan and JFK gave speeches. This has caused some controversy.

According to the New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has her reservations:

"'Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. 'To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,' said a spokesman."

It's true Obama needs some grey hair and gravitas. He's clearly no Kennedy or Reagan despite, what he believes, and despite the obvious fact he isn't an elected President.

He's a fancy lad, who likes fancy language and fancy faux Presidential seals and backdrops. But this is a risky move. Besides looking presumptuous and immaturely arrogant to think he is on the same level as Reagan or JKF, it could turn off a lot of the American heartland who have yet to see him visit Iraq. While liberals will love it (many favor Europe's social programs and are more concerned with winning a global popularity contest instead of the global War on Terror) the rest of America focuses primarily on domestic issues. That's why it's a gamble for any candidate to spend too much time overseas when there are many crises here at home. Last time I checked there were no votes in Berlin, either.

Obama will also have to be very careful with what message he chooses. The history between the East and West has always been complicated. One misstep and he could seem even more inexperienced than he already does. Just a few months ago, the Europeans were not too happy at Senator Obama's gaffe-turned-doctrine to begin direct talks without pre-conditions with leaders of rogue nations, specifically Iran. They viewed his naiveness as a "go at it alone" mentality undermining US and EU joint efforts to expand sanctions on Iran for years.

Lately the Obama camp has been backing off talk of the Brandenburg gate as a choice for a locale. Though it would be difficult after all this chatter to back off the venue, Obama has no problem altering his position when things get tough and sharp criticism ensues. I don't expect it to be any different this time around.

Those pesky mics are at it again. This time they caught Jesse Jackson during a commercial break while he was waiting to do Fox News:

"See, Barack's been, um, talking down to black people on this faith-based... I want to cut his (EXPLETIVE DELETED) off."

Snip! Uh, I mean SNAP!

It's interesting that someone who has done hundreds of interviews in his career wouldn't realize that people were listening to what he was saying. One can safely assume that during a television interview people aren't just listening, but also recording what you're saying.

This leads me to two conclusions: 1) Jackson doesn't know any better or 2) Jackson doesn't give a damn.

We'll never know for sure (I have my theory) but one thing is certain: Jackson wants to do more than castrate Obama. Barack renders him irrelevant for all the right reasons. Thanks, in part, to Barack, the type of politics Jackson preaches is out, WAY OUT. Jackson has built his business on the ability to propagate racial resentment, to divide, and to preach about two Americas comprised of and "us" and "them". This runs in direct contrast to Obama's messages and mantra.

Jackson may have done Obama a favor, allowing him to rise above the old guard politics of hate. Maybe now Jackson will do the rest of us a favor and stay away from the microphone for good.

John McCain has a new ad. Time magazine's site has the write up:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/mccains_summer_of_love_strateg.html

It highlights his service and his courage, which are not up for debate, no matter how many stars you have. And if you want to debate it you probably aren't going to vote for him anyway. But why does it open with scenes from the 60's? Nobody wants to go back to the Vietnam era. Plus ex-hippies are paying the same amount for gas at the pump as everyone else, and they are paying taxes at the same rates. This is evidence Republicans don't know what to run on this cycle. They keep talking about the past when the public, with its high energy costs and and declining home values, will in all likelihood focus on the present. Past records, past accomplishments, and "Bio-tours." will not be enough.

Senator McCain needs to cut the scripted message schedule and bio-rollout, and tell us what his top initiatives will be as President. Stick to this message and do not veer from it until Election Day.

McCain is the best candidate for President, he just needs to tell everyone why.

I'll admit it. I'm a flip-flopper. I never wanted a website, but now I have one. I'll be voicing my opinions on politics, media and culture. If you're looking for talking points or the most up to date polling, this isn't the place. I hope this website embodies what I'm about: unfettered opinions. I hope you'll return.