I wouldn’t freak out about it if I was an Obama fan. Too many things can happen between now and November. Personally, I would say that I have switched over the last few weeks from a slight Obama lean to a firmer McCain lean. There are, however, many weeks left, and the debates could be a good way to stage a comeback, both personally and nationally.

Michael is understandably frustrated with the constant drumbeat of commenters who will indict the alleged motives of authors instead of engaging their argument substantially.  Element #1 of the comments policy already addresses this. 

As editors (just like at any magazine), we have the right to be selective in what "letters to the editor" (comments) we choose to publish.  Anyone who can’t comment without attacking the alleged motives of the post author can see their comments deleted.  I don’t think that is in any way unreasonable.

No comment will ever be deleted merely because it contains a substantive, principled disagreement about any issue.

Lose war rather than win campaign, Landstuhl. Nothing Obama has done comes close – McCain is playing the culture war. Obama has finally realized that he has to go negative in battleground states and I like that.

"whining and accusing the other guy of being a mean old bully for actually bringing up issues and such doesn’t count."

Screaming about not taking a 3 AM call, Landstuhl, tire-pumping tropes and culture warfare is not raising of issues. It’s low. Bush low.

Poor Obama. Poor poor Obama. Color me unimpressed by that charge, as the McCain campaign has not been markedly nasty.

while resisting getting down into the mud as much himself

Because, of course, whining and accusing the other guy of being a mean old bully for actually bringing up issues and such doesn’t count. Classic "pity me" tactics from the cult of victimology.

It’s actually been a rather clean campaign so far by historical standards, including recent history. I’m sure that will change soon enough, from both directions. 

That’s also not accounting for the assorted cheerleaders and wingnuts, who will do whatever strikes their fancy despite and regardless of any intent or inclinations on the parts of the candidates or any solid basis for the claims used. Many will get down and dirty, but few will be doing so on orders from the campaigns.

It always pays to remember that one’s "friends" can do one much more damage than one’s opponent, and that fair or not, one WILL be judged somewhat by the company one keeps.

I won’t claim to be unbiased here, but I’m starting to get the feeling that political analysts in hindsight will note what a lousy campaign Obama has run in the general so far. Even as an amateur strategist, I’d say he’s gotten things backward by promising to run a positive campaign and trying to focus his message on the positive during the summer and NOW turning negative towards the end. First, that gets it backward because people tend to want to end on a high note and feel good about their choice instead of casting a vote against the other candidate. And second, it puts the Democrats in their typical reactionary, defensive mode.

Of course the surrogates on both sides have been negative all along (Obama’s much more so than his supporters will admit, and he also had Hillary’s camp doing a lot of the mudslinging at Republicans early on), but when you look at the official McCain campaign they’ve obviously gone negative during the summer (but used humor, not mud) and now will likely focus more on McCain’s positives.

I refuse to make an issue out of McCain’s age as long as his mama is still around to kick my ass. And she is, and maybe could.