Folks should leave Barack out of this "Proposition 8" fight.  Supporting a NO on 8 might be the right thing to do, but it's a political suicide for Barack's national chances.  Obama supporters that are also opponents of 8 should try and keep Obama name and campaign away from this or the Democratic Party would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on Tuesday.  Please try to win one fight at a time.  Even if the "YES on 8" group wins on Tuesday, the "NO on 8" group should fight another day.

Please don't try to win everything at once and therefore loss the most important prize at stake.

I'm perplexed. I'm baffled. Where is the Obama Campaign attack team?  
The candidate cannot be his own attack dog - NO.  

Why is Barack Obama the only one campaigning for Barack Obama?  Where is his campaign staff?  Where are the surrogates?  Why are the surrogates not allowed to be taking up issues with the McCain/Palin train-wreck on a daily basis?
If this campaign should be about issues, is it not wise to have lots of surrogates laser-pointing at each issues on daily basis and exposing/contrasting McCain's positions on those issues everyday for the next 7 weeks?

Give me some answers please; I love your ground game but I also need you to control the daily narratives for the next 7 weeks.

Obama's attack line should be something as simple as "My Republican Opponent, John McCain is same as George Bush"  

Have this in every Town Hall
Put it at the end of every Ad
Use it as daily talking point

Just pond on it the McCain is the Republican opponent and his regime would be same as George Bush's.

I just had it with the McCain Campaign and a non-responsiveness or counter-attack from the Obama side.  But I believe that the silence of the Obama camp created a void that must be filled, an opportunity that must be capitalized on.  

I have this idea and want to see how many people would like to join me on it.  If I have enough people willing to give $10 a week and also contribute ideas, I'll start "American Progressive Alliance" 527 that would be dedicated to producing and running "mean" attack ads against John McCain and other mean-spirited Republican candidates nationwide or in certain states or areas:

* The content of the attack ads would be derived from McCain's daily-gaff lists.
*We'll not accept any ad that is based on lies; all ads must be factual since I believe that McCain gaffe machine is capable of producing at least two gaffes daily.
*We'll start with the one that nails McCain for not knowing much about the economy and drag Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" comments in the same 30 minutes ad that would run from time to time in most swing state until November.
*We'll encourage participation of the netroot community in creating as many ads as McCain gaffes.  One or two ads for every gaffe.  No gaffe would go unnoticed.  And reruns would be the order of the day.
*We'll not be interested in promoting Obama.  His campaign does a good job at that.  We just want to tear McCain down using his gaffes.

Finally, I want to tell us what we already knew - negative attacks works.  They work whether you like them or not.

I'm ready to register a 527 on Monday if I have your support.    

Obama Could Still Lose This Election

Several things happening now heightened my fear that Obama is not being diligent about wining this election.  He could still lose if he doesn't change some tactics.  I really have issues with the following developments:
1.    he's not keeping his promise to fight back promptly and to bring "a gun to a knife fight".  The McCain campaign has been running several false attack ads against him and since he came back on Saturday, I've been expecting him to respond forcefully with the truth.  
2.    His campaign should stop praising McCain e.g.: "I know that John McCain want to keep America safe, so do I"  this kind of line affirming McCain who is not interested in running any respectful campaign is a negative for Obama
3.    VP:  I believe that removing Wesley Clack from his VP list is a mistake.  If Obama wants to go for a white male, it should be a know General.  Tim Kaine as VP would lose Obama the election.  McCain's only chance of winning this thing is to wait for Obama to pick a non-General white male VP, for McCain to pick Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and win the election with the support of older white women who happen to be the largest electoral demography in America.  Obama's VP, if not a General (like Wesley Clack) should be Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.
On VP, Obama has no choice; it's either a General to neutralize McCain's military experience - like Clack did a few weeks ago, or a female governor, which will cover for the female vote as well as the economy (Americans trust governors to be good economic managers)

Finally, Obama should keep his promise to fight back promptly, ad for ad, press-release for press-release, conference-call for conference-call, radio-ad for radio-ad, web-ad for web-ad.   Obama should also hire Wolfson away from Fox News to take charge of his media counter-punches.  Currently, I see no real fighter in Obama media team that could match Tucker Bonds who is an amateur compared to Howard Wolfson.

It seems that the past weeks did portray John McCain as a serial liar.  The list is long but I'll try to list some of the areas that jumped at me.

Just shortly Iran test-fired some missiles this week, McCain came out to claim that the test was conducted by the Revolutionary Guards that he (McCain) voted to label a terrorist group.  

McCain said: "It's my understanding that this missile test was conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when a amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote, called it provocative. Called it a provocative step. And the fact is, this is a terrorist organization and should have been branded as such."
http://mediamatters.org/items/2008071000 08

Well it turned out that he did not vote on the bill - a bold face LIE.  Media Matters has the video and the comments from CNN  

Then there was the lie about his time as POW in Vietnam, replacing the Greenbay Packers in his famous book with the Pittsburg Steelers at an interview event in Pennsylvania.  ABC has this on the story:

"In Pennsylvania, McCain Tells a New Version of Heroic P.O.W. Story -- Subbing the Pittsburgh Steelers for the Green Bay Packers"  
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/in-pennsylvania.html
It's a lie of Tuzla proportion.  It's McCain's Sniper-Fire moment.

Again on his votes in the Senate, McCain could not admit that he voted against measures that would have forced the insurance companies to give women a pill choice as they gave men a Viagra choice:  
"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," the Arizona senator said aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus in Ohio when asked about his views on health insurance covering the medication.

However, the record was presented to him and he refused to acknowledge it:

McCain has voted against Senate measures that sought to require insurance companies to cover birth control medication.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/07/10/mccain-avoids-viagra-question/

Then McCain claimed that he did not say that he don't understand economic as he should.  Think Progress has it here:
 This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is traveling through Colombia, making a push for a free-trade agreement. In an interview with ABC this morning from Cartagena, McCain was asked about his now infamous statement that he doesn't understand economics well. McCain quickly interrupted the interviewer, denying he ever said this:
Q: You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy and many have said -
McCAIN: I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. I'm very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent.
But here is what McCain said in January 2008:
McCain: I Never Said That I Don't Know Much About Economics»
This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is traveling through Colombia, making a push for a free-trade agreement. In an interview with ABC this morning from Cartagena, McCain was asked about his now infamous statement that he doesn't understand economics well. McCain quickly interrupted the interviewer, denying he ever said this:
Q: You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy and many have said -
McCAIN: I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. I'm very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent.  
In fact, McCain and his advisers have repeatedly admitted that he is weak on economic issues:
"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book." [December 2007]
Seeking to explain his shift on economic issues, McCain claimed: "I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a 'supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue." [January 2000]
Carly Fiorina, a top McCain adviser, acknowledged that McCain has said he knows little about the economy, noting that "he did say it one time, no question, maybe twice." [6/10/08] http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/mcca in-dodge-economics/

McCain also lied about his divorce in his famous-book.  Here is the LA Times take on McCain divorce saga:
1.    McCain said in his 2000 book, "I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.".  This indicated that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.  But according to court documents,  McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
2.    LA Times also write that, "Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife."  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,59249 26,full.story

McCain even lied on the Veterans.  A Kossack blogged about it here:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/8/1 42125/0361/907/548283

And on and on the list goes to more and more and more lies.

BO should avoid this trap of "more talks" by the MSM.  He should stop criticizing US government for Iranian intransigence.  

Was it the American (Bush's) fault that Iran test-fired some missiles today?  NO
Was it American (Bush's) fault that Iran refused to back down on its nuclear weapon program?  NO

Now that people in the know are sure about confrontation against Iran, it's time for BO to start highlighting Iranian intransigence like the nuclear program itself, harassment of US ships in the Gulf, today's missiles, and Iranian provocative rhetoric.

Instead of blaming Bush for everything wrong with Iran; the Mullahs bears the blame for Iranian situation.

I'm not a Bush apologist, but I don't want BO to become trapped into an Iranian apologist.  

The Mullahs of Iran hates America and everything we stands for; so enough with this "BLAME BUSH FOR IRANIAN MISTAKE" trap.

Make no mistake about it, US or Israel will take out Iranian Nuke facilities before this November.  Like I wrote in one of my prior diary:
Attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in right now inevitable and would happen between September 5 and October 15, 2008.  

This "shifting to the center" meme is a right-wing smear to define BO as a flip-flopper.  Barack Obama has always held these positions.  Check the records; Read Audacity of Hope; Please check your issues.  BO did not shift to the center as many right-wing pundits are claiming. The followings are positions that BO has held for as long as we've known him:

On NAFTA - No change, BO is and has been a free-trader all along but wanted trade-deals with labor standards to protect American workers.

On Guns - BO has always supported the right to bear arm as contained in 2nd Amendment (that's why he won Idaho, Colorado, etc. in the primary)

On Abortion - his current position has always been his position (that's why they EMILY's list attacked him in New Hampshire).

On Death Penalty - Go and check BO's Illinois record, where he led the reform there not to ban death penalty but to ensure a transparent and judicious death penalty system.

On Faith Based initiatives - Read Audacity of Hope.  This has been BO's position all along.

On Iraq -  BO has always had this "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline in consultation with Commanders on the ground.

So in conclusion, I give it to the Republican for having succeeded in fooling the Democrats and the Press to embrace their talking point.   They wanted to define BO as a flip-flopper the way they did against John Kerry.  Ask yourself, why were the Press and McCain campaign so fast to twist BO's reiteration of his Iraq position?  And this is the same position he's held since the first day he came up with "one or two brigade a month withdrawal" for a 16 months timeline.  Same position from September of 2007

So wake up folks; read your copy of Audacity of Hope; check BO's records to see that he's a pragmatic left-of-the-center democrat.