Analysis: The right way to attack McCain

It may be early, but the Democrats are making a crucial mistake: they are allowing John McCain to define himself. If McCain is given breathing space, he will be able to write a story that can drown out the transparent rightward pander-plunge he took to win the nomination. Obama's camp was right to avoid all-out war in the primary, but it is a possibly fatal error to allow McCain to get a general election footing. How can the Dems keep the Old Man off-kilter? It's simple -- paint him as a partisan, flip-flopping terrorist enabler.

Don't think those charges could stick to the principled maverick war hero? Think again- why accept your opponent's autobiography? The GOP does not give that luxury to Democrats. Indeed, Team Obama needs to employ the Karl Rove philosophy- attack your opponent's strengths. The strategy worked in 2004 against John Kerry. He earned a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, Kerry was a war hero, but Bush won reelection by calling him a pussy. The Republicans simply did not accept the premise that Kerry was a physically brave man with proven leadership. In the same way, Obama should not simply concede the strengths McCain has claimed for himself.

McCain is making his national security cred the centerpiece of his candidacy. He will continue to paint Obama as weak and make our safety the issue. It is imperative that Obama reverse this dynamic. Hitting McCain on Iraq, while a winning issue, does not fundamentally alter said dynamic. It still places McCain as a hawk and Obama as a dove, and leaves Obama open to the argument that he is unwilling to protect the country.

The key is to change the story. This saves you from having to argue shades and subtleties. Rather than 90s-style triangulation, which sacrificed policy for polls, Obama simply needs to find moderate and conservative arguments for his policies. This will allow him to speak boldly on new rhetorical ground and resonate with larger slices of the electorate.

Go for the throat of GOP strength: 9/11. Obama can make a Republican argument for a Democratic idea and win the issue. Take what he's good at talking about and apply it to national security. For example: When Democrats talk about ending our addiction to foreign oil, they typically stress that our oil money goes to dictators. This comes across as humanitarian; most Americans would agree in principle but would not actually care.

Instead, say "John McCain does not understand that America has to change the way we do business in the wake of 9/11. His gas tax fiasco will send more dollars to the Middle East. On September 11, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. McCain and the Republicans want to keep giving oil money to people who give money to terrorists. That is a September 10th mindset." Then pivot to alternative energy.

Obama has made some smart moves on national security; he has emphasized Afghanistan and the need to transfer troops there from Iraq. This breaks the standard dynamic. It is still vital, however, to make your issues reinforce a centerpiece of two or three themes. Energy independence as a national security issue immunizes Obama against cries of "tree-hugger." Make McCain waste time explaining that he is not a terrorist enabler.

"But," you argue, "McCain has a record of conservation and openness to alternative energy." So? Let McCain waste his time clarifying his position, let him spend energy climbing back up to where he was. Just by making McCain play defense here, you have changed the dynamics of the debate; now it would be about who is really for new energy sources. Obama and the Democrats can always win that argument. Inconveniently for the GOP, they have Al Gore on their side.

McCain is also getting a nearly free ride on his "man of principle" persona. Blow this out of the water. Saying he is a Bush clone is not enough. As I have argued before, it is imperative that McCain's persona is exposed as a fraud. McCain is running on his record not from the Senate, but from his 2000 primary race. Show how the two contradict. Say that McCain flip-flopped (and yes, it is important to use that word) on torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, immigration and coastal drilling.

Point out the flip-flops and then lay in with both barrels: "Somewhere on the road to the nomination, John McCain lost his way." The Obama camp has very cautiously gone down this road, but they have a habit of being a notch too subtle for the press and the voters. Obama can afford to be blunt.

One could call it "bait and switch." McCain is promising post-partisan, common-sense solutions, yet this is merely obscuring his Senate votes. Again, borrow established Republican phrases; McCain's rhetoric does not match his record. When one candidate is explaining himself, and one is explaining his ideas, the latter wins.

The Democrats play catch up every year. In politics, the best defense is a good offense; this means not giving McCain room to breathe. The more Obama makes McCain pay for his primary campaign, the less he can focus on the general or attacking Obama. Political mistakes are usually made while playing defense. Do not be fooled by the vaunted "Straight Talk Express"; McCain is very capable of being flustered. Obama needs to give McCain many opportunities to lose the election for himself. Just ask John Kerry.