Many of the things that Barack Obama did to soar past Hillary Clinton during the primaries are now causing him problems as the general-election race tightens.

Obama once ran successfully as a novel political outsider. He posed as a politically correct critic of discrimination of all sorts. As an idealist tired of the old Washington doublespeak, Obama mesmerized thousands with sermons against incumbent dinosaurs.

Obama’s own sense of sainthood was only strengthened when he wowed swarms in front of European monuments, and stepped out on a Democratic National Convention stage replete with Greek columns.

But the loftier the moral expectations Obama created, the more the disappointment grew when they couldn’t possibly be met.

Take Obama’s signature “hope and change” mantra. It was a natural rallying cry. Either a Bush or Clinton has been in the White House for the last 20 years. Voters were unhappy with the current president — and yet apparently didn’t want another Clinton. Meanwhile, the economy has been rocky, and much of the American public has grown tired of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama’s change was aimed against long tenure in Washington — or so he hammered away at Hillary Clinton for nearly a year. But then suddenly he picked as his vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, the consummate Washington insider. That attempt at balance was understandable, but it only seemed to legitimize opposition charges that Obama himself valued long D.C. experience — and was no less calculating than any other politician.

Next Obama attacked outsider Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin for her own unfamiliarity with national government. Fair enough. But again, that tactic still bothered voters: Wasn’t the Alaskan governor a fresh — and welcome — face just like first-term Sen. Obama? And wasn’t Biden a stale old-timer in Washington — and if so, as suspect as veteran John McCain? And, come to think of it, wouldn’t it have been better to have the experienced candidate at the top of the ticket, balanced by the outsider at the bottom, rather than vice versa?

Suddenly we are hearing constantly about sex and age in this campaign — and that also deflates St. Obama, who promised not just to be the better choice, but the better person. He once ran as a post-racial candidate, until Obama’s past associates like the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright cast doubt on that.

And why was Gov. Palin characterized by Obama as a mere small-town mayor — and by Biden as a “lieutenant governor,” as well as “good looking” and, given her positions, “a step backward” for women?

The pro-Obama media don’t help, sneering about what Palin wears, whether she spends enough time with her kids, and the minutiae of her husband’s past conduct. The public certainly never hears about Biden’s grooming, the amount of time he spent with his children when they were young, or his spouse’s private life.

Now a trailing Obama wants to get tougher and go more negative — in part by raising doubts about McCain’s age. Obama’s clumsy reference to putting “lipstick on a pig” raised, rightly or wrongly, charges of sexism, and in the same manner his reference to a stinky “old fish” was connected with John McCain — who, Obama earlier scoffed, was “losing his bearings.”

Obama ran ads claiming — with careful wording — that McCain “lost track” and “couldn’t remember” how many houses he has and that he’s out of touch because he has never learned to use e-mail and the Internet (forget that injuries as a prisoner of war make keyboard use difficult for him).

Like it or not, the perception is growing that Team Obama is focusing on Palin as a clueless hockey mom from way up north and on McCain as an old fogy. But that emphasis on sex and age doesn’t become a moralist, especially given Obama’s own siren warnings that his opponents might resort to racial attacks against him.

Then there were Obama’s once-lofty progressive principles. Yet no Northern Democratic liberal like Obama has won the presidency in a half-century. So everyone knew that Obama sooner or later had to move to the center in the general election to win over independents.

For the hope-and-change candidate, those natural readjustments now appear insincere and opportunistic — especially given that he had to move so far from the left to get to the middle. On campaign-finance reform, FISA, NAFTA, abortion, capital punishment, guns, Iran, Iraq, the surge, and drilling offshore, Obama has fudged on his earlier positions in the normal way of savvy pragmatists — but not in a manner befitting angelic idealists.

The new Obama probably will recover from his temporary setback in the polls. But right now his problem is that disappointed independent voters are catching on that this saintly savior is all too human.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years – departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only “notional,” making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as “a man of the Left” – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Around the world.

By Michelle Malkin, NRO

Al-Qaeda’s media relations department must be seething. Or rather, they must be seething beyond the usual Destroy America/Kill the Jews/Behead the Infidels/Convert-or-Die seething that is their second nature. After years of churning out throat-slitting propaganda videos, investing in the finest video editing software and studio sets, and establishing cozy relations with sympathetic international newspapers and global network news channels, the jihadists still don’t get no respect from world opinion.

They are the Rodney al-Dangerfields of global mass murderers.

A poll released this week of more than 16,000 people in 17 nations revealed that “majorities in only nine countries believe al-Qaida was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.” A mere 46 percent of individuals overall said they believed al-Qaeda executed the attacks — despite all the back-patting, fist-pumping video productions from AQ’s media arm, al-Sahab, claiming credit.

In 2006, the AQ flacks released tape of Osama bin Laden at an Afghan training camp with several of the 9/11 hijackers. “I ask you to pray for them and to ask God to make them successful, aim their shots well, set their feet strong and strengthen their hearts,” bin Laden urged in the sicko promo. In April, another clip showed irate and aggrieved jihadi leader Ayman al-Zawahri lambasting Hezbollah for crediting Israel for the 9/11 attacks. “The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it,” he griped.

But to no avail. Maybe this is why FBI Most Wanted Terrorist Adam Yahiye Gadahn, the American-born Muslim convert turned al-Qaeda publicist, has not been heard from in a while. He’s been falling down on the job. Either that or those damned 9/11 Truther conspiracy nuts have surpassed the Islamic jihadis’ recruitment efforts on YouTube. Time to hire a new viral violence marketing team.

So, who’s stealing the bin Laden operation’s thunder around the globe and getting all the blame (er, credit) for the September 11 terrorist attacks? The citizens of the world have cast their vote. Seven years after Mohamed Atta, Hani Hanjour, and their Allahu Akbar-screaming team succeeded in slaughtering nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children, large numbers of our putative allies in the civilized world still blame America and Israel.

“Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories,” according to the survey. “The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians.” The pollsters noted that no prompting was necessary: “These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.”

Among our great friends south of the border, Mexico boasted “the second-largest number citing the U.S. government as the perpetrator of 9/11 (30 percent, after Turkey at 36 percent). Only 33 percent name al-Qaida.” Which, of course, is no shock to those who remember when the U.S. soccer team was taunted with chants of “Osama! Osama! Osama!” after a match in Guadalajara four years ago; or when the team was booed again in 2005 and plastic bags filled with urine were reportedly tossed on American players.

They hate us. They still really, really hate us. And it is not all about Iraq. As a Mexican soccer fan told the Christian Science Monitor: “‘Every schoolboy knows about 1848. … When they robbed our territory,’ referring to when Texas, California and New Mexico were annexed to the U.S. as part of a peace treaty ending the war between the two countries, ‘that was the beginning.’“

Not coincidentally, another world opinion poll was released this week that dovetails with the 9/11 survey. While the global community refuses to unite against al-Qaeda as a common enemy to humanity, it has decided on who should be America’s next president. The BBC-commissioned poll named Barack Obama the world’s favorite candidate by an overwhelming margin of four to one. They see in their fellow “citizen of the world” a kindred spirit: Someone whose former spiritual mentor shares the European elite’s “chickens coming home to roost” schadenfreude. Someone who has promoted the need for “empathy” toward the head-chopping jihadists. Someone who shares their fetishizing of terrorists as poor victims of imperialism in need of more “understanding” and “education.” Someone who cynically hawks “Buy American” campaign stickers while courting the “Blame America” Left at home and abroad.

Obama is their man. Never forget.

Election ’08: Barack Obama has joined forces with a white socialist he calls a “good friend” — the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of “Sojourners.” He too believes in “liberation theology,” sans the black nationalism. In fact, Wallis is the white version of Jeremiah Wright, sans the black rage.

In addition to publishing “Sojourners” magazine, Wallis runs Call to Renewal — a network of liberal churches and activist groups “committed to ending poverty and racism.”

Wright once joined Wallis at the U.S. Capitol in an anti-poverty “preach-in” sponsored by Call to Renewal.

Wallis and his Washington-based operation have essentially replaced Wright and his militantly Afrocentric Chicago church, which Obama expediently dumped in the heat of the primary race after videos surfaced of his fire-breathing preacher damning America.

The avuncular, noncombative Wallis offers Obama a voting bloc that Wright could never help deliver: white Christian evangelicals, if in Birkenstocks.

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama tapped Wallis to oversee the drafting of the faith-based plank of the party platform (which, by the way, champions outreach programs for “ex-offenders”).

“This is a very faith-friendly convention,” Wallis said. “I think Democrats have really gone through an important change.” But their newfound faith is not one most mainline Christians would even recognize, let alone embrace.

Like Wright and Obama, Wallis believes that biblical faith compels radical social action. Their political ministry is called the “social gospel,” but it’s really just socialism dressed up in a cheap tunic. They refuse to separate personal faith from political activism, whether at home or abroad.

In the ’80s, for example, Wallis and Wright rallied to the cause of the communist regime in Nicaragua, and protested the U.S. arming of the Contra rebels. Wallis, in fact, marshaled thousands of “Witnesses for Peace” and joined them in Nicaragua, making it known they were willing to take a bullet to stop the anti-communist insurgency.

Wallis is more eloquent than Wright, but he preaches the same anti-American message. According to discoverthenetworks.org, he once called the U.S. “the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.”

Like Obama, Wallis got his start in Chicago, where he too was involved in community organizing. He forged ties with black gang leaders, including at least one known cop-killer.

While agitating in Chicago, Wallis published a newspaper called the “Post-American,” which was printed by the same radicals who put out the Black Panther paper. Now in D.C., he presides at funerals of gangbangers and runs a commune in the ghetto that romanticizes blight and mocks efforts at urban renewal.

“I don’t know which is the worst evil,” he said in a 1994 interview with the Los Angeles Times magazine, “the crackhouse or the gentrified house.”

Wallis agrees with Obama that American racism and capitalism are to blame for inner-city poverty, and echoes his oft-repeated call for “economic justice.” They share a spread-the-wealth vision, including subsidizing the working poor beyond expanded tax credits and minimum-wage hikes.

“The Bible says prosperity has to be shared,” Wallis said in a January 2000 interview with IBD. “It’s very simple.”

“So far the rising tide is lifting all the yachts, but not the boats the poor inner-city kids are in,” he said, adding that the stock market has created a “casino economy.”

Wallis likes to think of himself and his sojourners as “progressives.” But “they’re really just socialists,” said David Kelley, director of the Objectivist Center in New York.

Wallis may couch his Bolshevist views today. But in 1979, he was quoted in the journal “Mission Tracks” saying he hoped that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.”

Obama is one who’s seen the light. While delivering the keynote address for Wallis at his Call to Renewal 2006 conference in Washington, he condemned the “idolatry of the free market” and professed: “I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.”

Wallis says Obama is the kind of leader he’s been searching for, one who’s “responsive to social movements.” “Barack Obama talks about ‘being our brother’s keeper’ and how he finds a faith that does justice to be compelling to him,” he said in a recent interview.

But it’s not just “movements” that Wallis has in mind. He recently wrote the foreword to a leftist book titled, “The Revolution: A Field Manual for Changing Our World.”

Wallis is also an anti-military pacifist who fasted for 47 days to protest last decade’s popular Gulf War.

Like his fellow traveler Obama, he believes 21st Century America is guilty of “structural injustice and social oppression” aimed at blacks. His Sojourners magazine features radical professor Cornel West as a contributing editor. West, a black Marxist, is working as an adviser to Obama’s campaign.

Wallis put another radical professor, James Cone, on his Sojourners editorial board. Cone is Wright’s mentor and the father of black liberation theology, a Marxist version of Christianity that worships a white-hating black Jesus.

“Together,” Cone said, “black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society.”

Wallis, who once regularly attended black liberation churches in his hometown of Detroit, has no problem with that. He says his mission is to “sojourn with others in different faith and traditions” toward a common goal of “social justice.”

Now he’s hoping to sojourn his way into the White House with Obama, whose favorite scripture happens to be a verse from Chronicles referencing sojourners: “For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers.” (He quotes from it in his first memoir; in fact, it sits strangely alone on what should be his dedication page.)

Such foes of capitalism and apologists for communism belong in communes, not national leadership. Better they sojourn their way completely out of American politics.

Rudy Giuliani had me in stitches during his red-meat keynote address at the GOP convention. I laughed out loud when Giuliani laughed out loud while noting Barack Obama’s deep experience as a “community organizer.” I laughed again when VP nominee and Alaska governor Sarah Palin cracked: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

Team Obama was not amused. (Neither were the snarky left-wingers on cable TV who are now allergic to sarcasm.) They don’t get why we snicker when Obama dons his Community Organizer cape. Apparently, the jibes rendered Obama’s advisers sleepless.

In a crack-of-dawn e-mail to Obama’s followers hours after Giuliani and Palin spoke, campaign manager David Plouffe attempted to gin up faux outrage (and, more importantly, donations) by claiming grave offense on the part of community organizers everywhere. Fumed Plouffe:

Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack’s experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let’s clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.

Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations, and using the race card as a bludgeon.

As I’ve reported previously, Obama’s community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub “direct actions”); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago’s minority lobbies.

With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud. Since I last detailed ACORN’s illicit activities in this column in June (see “The ACORN Obama knows,” June 19, 2008), the group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement.

Last week, Milwaukee’s top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, or other information on voter registration cards.

Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders, and forgery convicts on ACORN’s payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused “of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials.” Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.

ACORN’s political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. In the meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called “Citizen Services, Inc.” for “advance work.”

Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: “ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain. Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama’s political gain.” With a wave of his magic wand, Obama amended his FEC forms to change the “advance work” to “get-out-the-vote” work.

Now, don’t you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don’t you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain.

He was just “organizing” his “community.” Feel free to laugh out loud.

— Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of “social change.”

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn’t seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year “community leadership” positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They’ll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.

In exchange, they’ll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about “social change” through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul “The Red” Alinsky.

“Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities,” Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. “I get to practice being an activist,” and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

Public Allies promotes “diversity and inclusion,” a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are “people of color.” When they’re not protesting, they’re staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.

Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It’s training the “next generation of nonprofit leaders” — future “social entrepreneurs.”

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. “Don’t go into corporate America,” Michelle has exhorted youth. “Work for the community. Be social workers.” Shun the “money culture,” Barack added. “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

“If you commit to serving your community,” he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, “we will make sure you can afford a college education.” So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today’s youth find the pitch attractive. “I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement,” said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. “There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I’ll have a job.”

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. “It was too touchy-feely,” said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. “It’s a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias.”

One of those -isms is “heterosexism,” which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of “capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.”

The government now funds about half of Public Allies’ expenses through Clinton’s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military, he said.

The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.

As this is written, with a deadline looming, I have not heard Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field and have not learned who is John McCain’s choice for vice president.

You know more about these things than I do. So I will write about something I may know more about, and which has been the subject of some concern at the Democratic National Convention: the Democrats’ charge that Republicans make illegitimate attacks on their candidates, attacks that imply that they are far out of the American mainstream. The two examples they cite are the “Willie Horton” ads against Michael Dukakis in 1988 and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads against John Kerry in 2004.

But both attacks were well within the bounds of fair political comment. Dukakis supported for 11 years a policy of granting weekend furloughs for prisoners sentenced to life without parole. Willie Horton, one of those furloughed, fled and committed another violent crime.

There’s a reasonable argument for granting weekend furloughs to prisoners scheduled to be released in six months or so. Voters may not agree, but few will consider the policy outrageous. But there is no rational argument for letting loose a prisoner who is supposed to stay behind bars the rest of his life. Democrats now criticize Dukakis for not fighting back. But what argument could he have made?

As for Kerry, I listened respectfully to the majority of his boatmates who said that he acted heroically and to the majority of the larger squadron who said that he did not. They were talking about events that happened long ago, in sudden violence, and I found myself unable to say those on either side were lying.

But I also saw Kerry’s campaign abandon his claim — that he said on the Senate floor in 1986 was “seared, seared” in his memory — that he was in Cambodia at Christmastime 1968. And I never heard him repudiate his 1971 Senate Foreign Relations testimony — featured in the ads — that our soldiers committed “crimes … on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

I used to be a Democratic campaign consultant. In that capacity, I would have advised the Dukakis campaign to admit early on that the furlough policy was a mistake. I would have advised the Kerry campaign to go before a veterans’ group early on and apologize for the Foreign Relations testimony. Voters understand that candidates sometimes make mistakes and that young men say outrageous things that in time they come to regret.

Which brings us to Barack Obama. He has three major vulnerabilities here as I see it. One is his 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Polls suggest he has sustained some damage on this, and it’s not clear whether video clips of Wright saying “God damn America” will inflict more in the fall despite the candidate’s repudiation of those comments.

Another problem is Obama’s relationship with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers. In an April debate, Obama portrayed Ayers as a casual acquaintance. But Ayers was co-founder of the $49 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge education program and Obama its chairman of the board. The Obama campaign has sued to take off the air ads highlighting the Ayers relationship and tried to intimidate a radio station for hosting a conservative who is examining the Annenberg documents in the Richard J. Daley Library.

Finally, there is Obama’s 2003 vote against a bill, “virtually identical” as the Obama campaign admits, to one that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, banning the killing of fetuses who have survived abortions.

Liberals like Obama tend to go over the line between positions and associations that most voters find reasonable (though they may not agree) and those they find outrageous. They assume, usually correctly, that mainstream media will be reluctant to report on the latter, as has been the case in all those mentioned above. Conservatives take more care to separate themselves from the outrageous because they know mainstream media will pounce on them if they don’t.

On Ayers, the Obama campaign has tried to suppress discussion. But it will likely fail. The emergence of new media and the First Amendment mean that is like stopping the Mississippi River from flowing to the sea. If I were advising Obama, I would tell him to confess error, as he arguably has on Wright, on both Ayers and the Born Alive Protection Act, lest they cause his campaign as much damage as the furlough ads caused Michael Dukakis and the Swift Boat ads caused John Kerry.