This post shows how Team McCain is painting a rather unflattering portrait of Sen. Obama. Personally, I think McCain’s been effective in that mission. Here’s how Sen. McCain has gone about defining the Obamessiah:

Defining one’s opponent is a key task of any campaign, and simply put, McCain has had a long head start. As early as Feb. 12, the day McCain and Obama each won primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., McCain suggested Obama was guilty of hollow promises and a messianic self-image.

“To encourage a country with only rhetoric, rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people, is not a promise of hope,” McCain said, alluding to Obama’s speaking skills and campaign theme. And in another jab he added, “I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need.”

I’m betting that the judgment theme will be particularly effective, especially if Sen. McCain highlights the illogic of Obama’s willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad while criticizing Hamas, which is funded in part by Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

Let me suggest that a single meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad will boost the terrorists’ morale more than the war in Iraq ever did.

This question remains: What’s the logic behind such a policy? Would a President Obama want to meet with terrorists just for the sake of meeting with them? If that’s his belief, would Obama’s foreign policy reflect that naive attitude? Would Obama’s foreign policy be a rehash of Jimmy Carter’s disastrous foreign policy of pacifism?

Here’s something that Sen. McCain is likely to repeatedly hit Sen. Obama with:

But the McCain camp sees Obama’s relative lack of experience and accomplishment as a major vulnerability, especially compared to a longtime senator and war hero. In a speech on his judicial philosophy last week, McCain again went after Obama for being more of a talker than a doer, as well as for what he considers his limited record of bipartisan accomplishment.

“Sen. Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Sen. Obama than it did the guy who can get things done,” said McCain, accusing Obama of casting a “partisan” vote against John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court.

When it comes to heartland voters, actions carry more weight than words. Sen. Obama is all talk and limited action. People will notice the difference between Obama’s happy talk about uniting the country and his voting against John Robers, especially when it’s pointed out that more Democratic senators voted for Roberts’ confirmation than voted against Roberts’ confirmation.

Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose this disastrous war from the beginning and the judgment to understand that for the sake of our security we now need to change course and bring it to a responsible conclusion,” said Hari Sevugan, an Obama spokesman.

“It’s clear that John McCain isn’t offering anything new–his false attacks and meaningless labels are as tired as the failed Bush policies he’s offering for another four years,” Sevugan added.

Hari Sevugan has a difficult task. He’s defending a man that opposed the war “from the beginning” but whose only plans going forward are: (a) leaving Iraq before it’s stabilized and (b) talking with Iran while their demolitions are killing Iraqis and coalition forces.

The Obama’s campaign is helping paint an unflattering portrait of Sen. Obama when it whines about “false attacks.” The attacks are very real. The message that whining sends is that Sen. Obama isn’ tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief. If you can’t stand the heat, you shouldn’t be in the kitchen.

How will Obama be able to explain how that isn’t a sign of weakness towards terrorists? As I wrote yesterday, Osama Bin Laden took our pulling out of Somalia as proof that the United States was a “paper tiger”:

“Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,” the terror chief recalled. “America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

It’s clear that terorrists see America’s pulling out as them defeating the infidels. Based on what Sen. Obama has said, it’s clear that retreat and pacifism are the cornerstones of Sen. Obama’s foreign policy.

The punditocracy keeps talking about how unpopular the war is. The problem is that people hate losing wars more than they hate fighting wars. I’ve consistently maintained that Democrats misread the polling. Their interpretation is that Americans are ok with losing wars. The biggest reason why people were upset with the war is because we weren’t winning.

Sen. Obama isn’t being smart in ignoring the improving polling results due to Petraeus’ Surge. He’s running a campaign based on what worked in 2006, not on what’s appealing in 2008. That isn’t the way to win elections.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Jimmy Carter, Foreign Policy, Hamas, Iran, John McCain, Decisionmaking, Judgment, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog