Pros and cons for Mr. Obama in the weeks ahead

Thinking about last night's acceptance speech by John McCain, I have concluded that the issues for Barak Obama boil down to these:

The fact that the surge seems to be working is taking some steam away from Obama's anti-war stance. The Republicans will be hammering away at his opposition to the surge and his attempts to block funding for it. McCain is blunting Obama's call for a change in Washington by pledging bi-partisanship and inviting Dems and independants to work with him. Another factor that might hurt the big O is the sabre-rattling of Vladimir Putin that is bringing us right back into another cold war. I am sure they will point to how Ronald Regan ended the orginal one.

What Obama has to do is keep stressing that the Iraq war, which has claimed the lives of 5,000 American soldiers, was wrong in the first place and had nothing to do with the war on terror. He has to remind the voters that he was against it from the beginning, while McCain was totally on board from the start. Without the war, we would not have needed the surge. He needs to harp on the fact that more soldiers are dying in Afaganistan than ever before, as a result of our inattention to the Taliban due to our preoccupation with Iraq. Perhaps hardest of all, he is going to have to convince the American people that he can stand up to the Russians. One point he can argue is that America should not let Mr. Putin affect our Presidential election.

I think he can effectively counter McCain's claim to bi-partisanship by pointing out that he has chosen as his running mate someone who appeals to the far right of his party on every single issue. If he were truly bi-partisan, he would have chosen Joe Lieberman or a more moderate Republican. He can't have it both ways.

When Sarah Palin points out that she has administrative experience and Obama and Joe Biden do not, they have to point out that McCain has never held an executive position. She can't have it both ways either. Experience is the biggest red herring in this election. No one who has never been President is "experienced." Only an incumbent can claim that. Abraham Lincoln, whose name the Republicans regularly invoke, had no experience. Bill Clinton, was a $35,000-a-year governor of the poorest state in the union. Did that qualify him as experienced enough to be President? He did okay. And whatever gains he made, the Republicans promptly pissed away.

When John McCain tells you that he would rather lose an election than lose a war, what he really means is "lose another war." McCain was a war hero in a losing effort. That has to have stuck in his craw. Vietnam was no more a just war than Iraq. But nobody dares say that, at least not running against John McCain.