When the attacks are as silly and petty as involving Britney and Paris, then yes, they're bound to backfire.

That's a good question. The media seems intent on protecting McCain from himself.

So while this campaign, which has gone negative to a deeper degree than any we've seen at this point in the cycle, and which is comprised of statements "less than fully true" should backfire, it may not.

It comes down to whether the average independent sees McCain as a typical Republican, saying anything about his opponent to win, or whether that typical independent continues to see this media creation of McCain as something different. In other words, will McCain's attack falsehoods become the story, to the degree Obama's flagpin and "arrogance" have become.

If not, the McCain attacks probably won't backfire.

McCain is disgusting.

I used to think that he was an American hero but he is now an old and ugly man.

What Obama unforced error?

I could have sworn that John McCain said earlier this year that his campaign was going to take the high road........what has happened to change his approach? In fact, I thought that he said that the American people wanted, and deserved, better......what has happened to change his approach? Simple put: I guess that John McCain has nothing positive to say. In fact, he has NOTHING TO SAY about how he's going to move our country forward. How sad.......McCain.......more of the same old politics as usual!

The ad by John Mc Cain,s campaign, is childish, lacking maturity and substance.
This will give impetus to Obama Camp, if atall it makes any impact, it will be negative. God bless John Mc Cain.

Howard - he did say that. McCain said people are hungry for a high-road campaign that debated issues, and he'd rather lose the election than give people anything less.

I guess he's re-evaluated that equation. Now it seems like he'll say anything to win.

I kind of puts his "Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election" statement in context, huh?

Backfire? Means those whom you wanted to influence would somehow not be influenced. So lets be serious.
Ozbama's predictably cried foul - negative - low road - childish.
McCain's people wondered why it took so long to come out swinging.
The rest of America is still... on summer vacation ...and won't have even seen this, much less cared
The Americans who are truly undecided will nod or not at the comparisons being made and smile or not should they ever see it.
It is only the politically entrenched that care about any "backlash"
I suggest that comments by the MSM are hardly momentum for true voter backlash - but nice try .

Have John McCain's attacks been racist? No, but they are designed, in part, to take advantage of racist perceptions of Barack Obama.

Why should we interpret Obama's trip, a demonstration of Obama skills on the world stage (and suggested by none other than John McCain) as evidence that he is "arrogant"? Because he is black. And why do some people insist that Obama is Muslim, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding? Because he is black.

But let me reiterate, McCain has not been overtly racist in his small minded attacks. But he does want to take advantage of the prejudices of others.

I would like to see Obama go after McCain's policy weaknesses, beyond the colossal misjudgment to go to war in Iraq. McCain has advocated removing the tax break that benefits employers to provide health insurance. McCain believes that health insurance companies should be regulated by the state of their own choosing, by simply reincorporating in a friendly state.

McCain supported the filibuster of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair pay act. McCain's economic speech this spring made it clear that rather than criticizing regulators for sleeping on the job during the run up to the housing/credit crisis, he wants then to take the next 4 years off.

He opposed full college tuition for vets returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And most importantly, McCain opposed higher fuel efficiency standards that would have led to the U.S. importing 20% less oil than we currently do.

I'm not sure, Tamrya. Maybe there's a racist element to it, or maybe there's an acknowledgement it might tap into racist views by some who watch these ads. But I think that's all.

I do agree with you that there's a double standard, and I'm at a loss to explain it. So I can't tell you I think you're flat-out wrong.

I think part of it might be boneheadedness on the part of the media. They've created this myth of McCain being "different," and now when confronted with constant indicators that view isn't true, they seem to want to ignore the indicators rathern than alter their long-held view of the man.

Take his supposed foreign policy expertise. We've seen from his statements indicators of outright ignorance, and yet the predominant view is he's the foreign policy expert of the two.

Maybe its a question of just needing time. Maybe the media as a collective body will come around to the notion that maybe they were wrong about McCain all along.

John's conscience - that's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

Interesting to watch the mainstream press tacit support of obama... anything mccain says about obamas policy plans is an "attack" no matter what... but obama's race baiting and put down's of mccain are projected as statements and of course not attacks... such as ap's article
"says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
"That's a definition of madness, but that's what John McCain is offering. He's offering Bush economic policies and Karl Rove politics," Obama said

foutsc - isn't that what a news blog and message board is supposed to do? They get the talking points out so that people (us) can discuss them.

Lord knows we've seen enough McCain talking points on these message boards.

So all in all, I'd say the blogs are doing their jobs. The bad part is McCain's talking points (which are all about Obama) seem to dominant the main (non-blog) news.

And then, the funniest thing is Republicans complain the news is all about Obama, even when that coverage is more negative than positive, and even when that coverage seems to be using McCain's talking points as an outline.

I love how Obama was on CNN defending against the McCain adds saying that the Republicans will use scare tactics. Then Obama goes into scare tactics himself, what a moron.

Obama's the one who keeps bringing up he's "black". He certainly didin't like it when "sexism" was brought up when it came to Hillary. What a winer! I don't care if he's purple with green polka dots, he's NOT qualified to be president, and voting or not voting for him because of his color is really stupid. He can't get ahead in the polls with all the glitz and glamour, money and "great" speeches. He's not fooling everyone...MOST everyone!

abql - I agree there. The media does seem to miss or short-cover the real news in favor of tabloid and horserace issues.

Two weeks ago I was hearing people on C-Span say if Fannie/Freddie go down, it will trigger a depression to the degree we saw in 1929, and that the emergency bailout isn't guaranteed to save them.

I don't know whether those statements were true. They were made by people who seemed sober and serious. I would have been interested in a little more coverage there. What would be the impact of this bailout not working?

But the media was focused on the superficial stuff.

Daunte - let's look at the whole context of McCain's tax flip flop.

The thing he said he was open to raising taxes for was Social Security. Yet he previously said the program was disgraceful because its funded by younger workers - which it always has been.

If he's so opposed to tax increases, why is he willing to increase taxes to save a disgraceful program? Where's the logic in that?

And then, of course, there's the humorous aspect of McCain's campaign saying the candidate may not have been speaking on behalf of the campaign.

They backfired for Hillary.The rich and powerful in america will do anything to keep the status -quo. The people that will believe these attacks were probably not going to vote for Obama anyway.Still they are ugly and not indicitive of a so call straight talking maverick,who claimed he would run a clean campaign.I just pray americans won't be fooled a third time.

I disagree, Samantha. I think picking Clinton is the sure way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I realize there's different dynamics at play because she's a woman, but conventional wisdom is that the first rule in picking a running mate is do no harm. She brings high negatives. And the things she claims as positives aren't universally accepted. I don't think most independents see her as experienced, and instead see her claims that she is as further indication of a disingenuous disposition.

A humorous video is an "attack"?

Obama thinks there was a President Hamilton and a President Franklin?