Analysis: And then there were two

The general election campaign has begun in earnest. With Sen. Clinton gone, the GOP must now quickly re-brand Sen. Obama as the boogieman they hoped Clinton would provide. So Sen. McCain went for the jugular, linking Obama with terrorists and playing on the myth that he's a Muslim. Obama has hit back with a subtle but deniable jab; a style that may become his trademark. This indicates that both candidates have entered general election mode. McCain is offering standard fare for a Republican, tying his opponent to "the enemy." Obama seems to be regaining the ability to attack while appearing above the fray. Nonetheless, the negativity has arrived. Finally, we can move on from destroying the Democratic party to destroying the country.

McCain, who this week said he was "ready" for the general, went on the attack against Obama. The terrorist group Hamas, McCain said, supports Obama for president. Was this merely a suggestion that Obama would be weak on terror, or was it a nod to the Muslim smear?

On The Daily Show, McCain refused to retract or apologize for the comment. He went on to explain that you would never see Hamas endorse him (maybe they don't like him on healthcare?) McCain then went further, saying Hamas knows he is their worst nightmare.

To be fair to McCain, Hamas did gush about Obama. "Actually we like Mr. Obama," said Ahmed Yousef, a political aviser to Hamas. "We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance." Looks like someone just secured the Hamas superdelegates.

Obama responded during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing... John McCain always says 'I am not going to run that kind of politics', and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his." If Obama seems a little crabby here, bear in mind how unsettling Wolf Blitzer can be.

Obama continued by explaining his position on Hamas, calling it a terrorist organization that should not be negotiated with unless they change their ways. Then, Obama attacked: "So for [McCain] to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.”

The McCain camp was a bit peeved at the "losing his bearings" remark. McCain staffer Mark Salter responded in a memo: "First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue."

Actually, it was pretty clever. The remark was just subtle enough that some people did not catch it; others thought it was more of a reference to McCain's service in the Navy. Losing his "bearings" may be a suggestion that McCain is no longer the maverick war hero of 2000 and is now a Bush clone. This is the line of attack Democrats need to press in this race; simply linking McCain to unpopular policies is not enough. The Obama team must convincingly argue that McCain's persona is a fraud.

Many did take it as an age reference, which would be a bit weak. To be fair to Obama, however, McCain is old. Salter's response just keep that out in the open, but worse, it comes across as rather whiny.

Salter continued that "this is typical of the Obama style of campaigning. We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him."

Well Mr. Salter, it certainly takes balls to claim the high road after calling your opponent the candidate of terrorists.

Obama's subtle style of attack always gives him a way to back out. He will not have to apologize for an age crack because he'll insist he did not make one. The shot he took here is reminiscent of his response to the Rev. Wright ad the North Carolina Republican Party ran.

McCain said he did not like the commercial but could not force it to be taken off the air. Obama's response was, even according to Bill O'Reily, was clever. Obama simply said that if McCain really wants the ad down, he will be able to force the N.C. GOP to comply since McCain is the leader of the Republican Party.

Obama insinuated that McCain is either a liar or not respected as the leader of the GOP. This reminds people that McCain is still less than loved in many quarters of the Right. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter were actively gunning for him. Obama's suggestion could lead the chattering classes to talk more about McCain's inability to bring unity to his party. All the while, Obama cannot be called out on it, because he was so indirect.

Obama arguably won both cases of back and forth. For both sides, however, these skirmishes may be a preview of what we can expect this year. It is important for both sides to not only attack the other's weaknesses, but their strengths as well.

The Democrats will want more talk of McCain's perceived inability to mollify the base. They also need to attack his strengths, which is his maverick profile and crossover appeal. Cracks about his age imply he is too establishment, and "losing his way" is code for saying this is not the McCain of 2000.

The two-pronged attack for Republicans will focus on Obama's alleged lack of patriotism. Hence, we get the Hamas comment. The arrow aimed at Obama's strength are the overblown, hysterical reactions to his every jab. Between the lines of Salter's feigned indignation were charges that Obama is no different than any other politician. They tried to make Obama's attack seem so much dirtier than it was because Obama's strength is that he appears to transcend traditional politics and focuses on hope. The best way to sling mud at Obama is to call him the mudslinger.

Get ready, it is going to be a long summer.