There’s an article up over at The American Prospect arguing that yes, Barack Obama actually is playing hardball this campaign season–so nail-biting liberals should relax. The article’s author, Tim Fernholz, points out that Obama hasn’t acted like Kerry 2.0–that is, he hasn’t taken it in the tuchus from low-down, dirty smearers like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (or, in this case, the low-down, dirty McCain campaign).

This is actually true. The Obama campaign has done a pretty good job of juggling the two primary reactions that you need to play up when an opponent starts playing dirty–and make no mistake, the McCain campaign is playing dirty, suggesting that Obama wants to pervert children and “destroy” Palin as a person. The two responses are (1) righteous indignation and (2) aggressive retaliation.

The Obama camp actually does #1 really well: it turns unapologetic outrage into great political momentum, something Kerry couldn’t do in 2004. Sure, Kerry decried the dirty pool of the Swiftboaters and such, but his campaign never packed the punch you need to turn outrage into momentum, because it never really took the initiative to frame the campaign debate. From day one, Kerry ran as the guy who wasn’t Bush (this is true: one of Kerry’s top campaign advisors talked with me at a bag lunch during an internship back then, and explicitly said that the Kerry campaign strategy was “to be the alternative to Bush.”) In doing so, he limited his ability to turn outrage into something more, something tied into his campaign narrative.

But Obama and Biden, these guys are running on something more. They don’t just want to not be Bush, they are insisting that this country be understood, governed, and engaged with in a much different way than it has been over the past eight years. Thus when the GOP tries to slap them around, they don’t just refute the specific claims, like Kerry did, but they use these instances as representative examples, symptomatic of Republican corruption, selfishness, and failure.

Consider Biden’s recent condemnation of Republicans’ unwillingness to talk about issues and their obsession with character assasination.

This is powerful stuff–why? Because it’s not personal outrage, it’s political outrage–it’s anger that’s entirely consistent with the message of the Obama-Biden campaign. The same is true for Obama’s admirable tendency to say “enough is enough” when the Republicans or the media get too keen on dragging political discourse into the gutter, as he did recently over the “lipstick on a pig” fiasco:

I don’t know about you, but in so far as outrage can be productive, I think the Obama-Biden ticket is all over it.

This outrage, of course, doubles as retaliation: it doesn’t ignore attacks, or cower before them, but it questions their premise. It steps outside of them; it shines the light of perspective on them. That’s not necessarily tit for tat, but it is a form of retaliation.

That’s not to say that the Obama campaign doesn’t engage in old fashion flamewars, of course. At the DNC, Obama said that McCain doesn’t get it and Biden said that being a “good soldier” isn’t the same as being a good president. And Obama’s recent use of images like a lipsticked pig or a dead fish wrapped in paper–both used as metaphors for McCain’s campaign–suggests that he’s getting more comfortable with saying outright that the McCain-Palint ticket is just plain rotten. Indeed, as Fernholz notes, the now-infamous McCain attack ad painting Obama as a borderline sex predator was actually a response to an earlier Obama ad that took McCain’s education and economic record right on the nose:

Yes, the Republicans have some momentum, but they’ve only had it for a short time. I know that Democrats around the country are suffering from a collective political PTSD, with traumatic flashbacks to 2000 and 2004; but panic doesn’t help anything. And, as I’ve tried to point out a bit here, there’s no need to panic, at least not yet: the Obama-Biden campaign doesn’t seem likely to lay down and die any time soon.

A while back, lots of people were making a big stink over the fact that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein, and turned it into something of a “fear bomb” used to tie Obama to anti-Americanism, terrorism, and an identity as the scary “other”–basically, a person to whom we shouldn’t entrust our national security.

Eventually, Republicans realized that this was a low blow, even for them, and disavowed the use of “Hussein” as a passive-aggressive slur against Obama. But after months, of in-depth research, sources tell me that the MiddleNameGate isn’t over yet–but this time, the offender is none other than John Sydney McCain.

Yes, that’s right–John McCain’s middle name is Sydney, just like Australia’s largest city. How can we trust McCain with our national security, when he so clearly empathizes with Australia over the U.S.? Just a few weeks ago, sailors form a missile destroyer named the USS John S. McCain (yes, named after McCain), attended a “Hands Across the Sea Concert” in–you guessed it–Sydney, Australia.

Americans should be worried. Australia, after all, started off as a penal colony–McCain’s ties to this island nation clearly indicate a softness on crime and terrorism. Perhaps most damning of all is the photographic evidence that McCain is a no-good Aussie-lover. Remember the picture of Obama in traditional Muslim garb that was circulated around the Internet in hopes of stoking worries that he might in fact be a terrorist? That’s nothing compared to the picture below, dug up from McCain’s own computer, in a folder dubbed “G’day Mate!.”

Truly, this is a man who does not have America’s best interests at heart. Country first, indeed, Senator “Sydney”–so long as that country’s Australia!

Looks like conservatives were right–you really can tell a lot about someone from their middle name.

Note: As you might be able to tell, weekend posts–insofar as there are any–are going to generally be lighter than weekday stuff which is all, y’know, brainy and shit.

McCain and Palin are walking around and waving as the theme from “Rudy” plays in the background. I would have preferred the theme to “Jurassic Park.” Because McCain is really old, get it? GET IT?

Good.

UPDATE: Christ Almighty, now they’re playing “Barracuda.” That’s almost as clumsily literal-minded as my Jurassic Park joke.

UPDATE 2: I just realized that “Rudy” could be construed as a reference to Rudy Giuliani. It’s not. I’m talking about this.

McCain is now talking about how he wants to work with Democrats to do the peoples’ work, partisanship-be-damned. He says he’ll take anyone’s hand to get things done, that he’ll have Democrats in his administration, and that everyone needs to work together for the sake of change.

Surely it’s a sign that Republicans are panicking if they’re lifting, wholesale, Barack Obama’s central campaign message, no?

Okay, first off: George W. Bush is getting applause for his leadership after 9/11. Yes, seriously.

Second: McCain’s smile terrifies me. It always looks like he’s trying to hide something, or trying to not fall into a murderous fit of rage. Exhibit A:

Only thing creepier? His use of “My Friends.”

Okay, I can’t take this anymore. The entire RNC is built around the idea that the Republican candidates–and even their families–are people you should like and admire, regardless of where they stand on particular issues. Cindy McCain is now lauding her children for serving in Iraq, as though the service of her son is an indication of her husband’s competence as would-be president.

Now she’s saying that her father was “a true Western gentleman” and that “his handshake was his solemn oath.” OKAY! I GET IT! The pedigree of the Republican candidates is impeccable! These are ‘good, decent people.’

But come on! The economy is entering a recession and wages have stagnated since the 1970s; we’re spending an unsustainable $2.1 trillion on health care and almost one-fifth of America lacks health insurance; one out of every 99 Americans is in prison; we’re fighting two wars at once–three, if you count the so-called ‘Global War on Terror’ as its own entity; and we have a deep, possibly unsalvageable, deficit.

Tell me, Cindy McCain, how is your father’s firm handshake going to address these problems?

Really, to ignore these issues in favor of lauding your family tree–which has been a recurring strategy of this Republican Convention–is just disgraceful. Enough, already.

She hasn’t done anything particularly wrong during her speech (yet), but I have an instinctive repulsion to her Stepford/trophy wife aesthetics. I know this isn’t particularly fair, but what can I say? I am a disaffected, got-less-sex-than-I-wanted-in-high-school kinda guy. Damn you for not giving me the time of day in AP American History, Cindy McCain!

Also? The way she’s delivering this speech comes off like a informercial or a bad talk show.  Me no like.

The site Right Wing News has compiled some reactions from right-wing bloggers to Palin’s RNC speech last night. Naturally, they’re thrilled by it. But perhaps the most disturbing reaction that I can find comes from William Lobdell, who was a reporter for the L.A. Times for 14 years:

Palin has just hijacked the presidential campaign. I’ve got a skeptical, Obama-loving wife and some liberal sons, and they all think she killed it...Palin has managed to make Obama look insignificant, McCain appear heroic, and herself: a grassroots American who won’t back down from a fight.

…I wasn’t prepared to like her, and I don’t. I LOVE her.

Governor’s jet on E-Bay? Classic.

Do you hear that? It’s America falling in love with Sarah Palin.

So far, she’s killing it.

Why so disturbing? Because Lobdell was an actual reporter, not just a blogosphere wingnut. And he’s falling for Palin’s “I’m a tough mama, Obama’s a pussy, and that’s all you need to know” act, hook line and sinker.

So, apparently, is Chuck Todd over at MSNBC, who says that “Conservatives have found their Obama.” Oh, come on. Her speech was competent and decently delivered, but so what? I agree with Timothy Noah that there’s no way this speech wouldn’t go over-praised if it was delivered with even the merest hint of gusto (which it was).

Why? Because expectations were set so low for Palin. By the time her big night at the RNC came along, her image was almost a caricature of the backwards yokel, thanks to media frenzies over pregnant teenagers and kooky secessionist parties. All she had to do was remind people that she could string together a sentence without guffawing and she was golden. The fact that she did more than that has now blown people away: the AP called Palin’s speech “star-turning.”

Okay: I understand that Palin, like Obama in 2004, just delivered a well-received convention speech from a position of relative obscurity. So in that sense, an Obama/Palin comparison is fair. But only in that sense. Barack Obama’s speech–and his breakout onto the political scene–is important because it introduces a new narrative into politics. After years of increased polarization, Obama came out of nowhere and said “stop! this is madness.” Palin isn’t about changing the course of politics: her speech was just about making fun of Obama and showing that she’s not a hick. She did both quite well, but you really can’t compare Obama’s call for a paradigm shift with Palin’s efforts to sell herself as credible.

So don’t tell me that this one speech made Palin the “real deal.” Republicans always knock Obama for having nothing but speeches, for launching his career from one grand oration in 2004–and now Palin’s going to get away with the same thing? The knock on Obama has always been that good speeches do not equal good leadership. That maxim apparently doesn’t apply to Republicans.

And keep in mind one thing during the whole Palin-as-messiah craze: Barack Obama has already won a national primary; Sarah Palin was plucked from obscurity without in-put from voters. Comparing the two is like saying Obama’s ascent to Democratic nominee was meaningless, a thing not to be counted when assessing candidates’ readiness for the national stage. But that’s ridiculous.

I’m trying to find something insightful to say about him, but he’s pretty much being Rudy as usual: he’s now saying that Democrats are in “denial” about 9/11 and the existence of terrorism, and that they have “given up on America.”

How ’bout this: his cackle frightens me.

Mike Huckabee is rambling on about some parable where a teacher invites veterans to carry school desks in a classroom. That seems like a whole lot of time wasted for a speech that’s supposed to talk about why John McCain should be President of the United States.

And no, McCain should not be president just because he was a POW, or because he is, and I quote Huckabee here, “one of those people who helped buy the freedom–and the school desk–that we have.” Nor is it because “John McCain helped me have a school desk…” (yes, Huckabee said that).

Bizarre.