Game changer or imponerable forces?

There is much talk about Obama needing a "game changer" to counter McCain's [Rove's] cynical choice of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential nominee.

I'm not so sure. The way I see it:

Two variables: McCain campaign. Obama campaign. Interpreter: the media.

Obama may not need a game changer to rise, if the McCain team falters.

True, the McCain/Rove axis has created quite a flurry. And there are, what, 50 some odd days to election. But I see no end to possible "game changers" team McCain may invent since they appear willing to do most anything, lie about everything, and generally act irresponsibly.
So it may not even be possible for team Obama to track and respond to every McCain flurry. Which is not to say Obama should not counter every direct attack and let his surrogates engage in some swift boating.

At this point it seems the left blogs, and even the centrist ones, are feeding the media all the Obama-centric ammunition that is needed. The media may regurgitate this on its own. Need Obama join that fray? Better, I think, to pick and choose large themes, bundle them, including strong contrasts with McCain-Palin, and promote the themes hard.

Honesty/lying to the American people would be a "theme". The eveidence is out there all over the place. Even on Fox.

Why Hillary is not the answer, and probably never was . . .

There is so much Hillary mourning still out there that Kubler-Ross might have to revise her grief cycle, if she were still alive. Some Clintonites forget the negatives.

It’s easy to think that her assertive/aggressive nature would be just the ticket to counter McCain-Palin (although Hillary did a lot of loving on him). However, those same characteristics, if tapped and let loose, would have enhanced the negative stereotype of Clinton and the Clintons that have necessitated her walking a fine line. It would have been "big bad Hillary picking on poor sweet Sarah, boo hoo", doncha know. Or we can fantasize that a perspicacious public would wake up and note the significant difference in experience, knowledge and [some would say] character that differentiates the two and say, whoa, I gotta run right out and register Dem. I doubt it would work that way.

If they hate Obama because he's black and he's got a "Muslim" name, they hate Hillary because she's an aggressive woman and got a Clinton name.

Really it has less to do with the individual than the image of that individual that can be successfully projected, and protected. And the repubs are light years ahead because that's ALL they care about and work on. Image, not substance.

McCain still reaps the benefits of the [perhaps] decade old reputation of being a maverick and a "straight talker" although he hasn't been either. Public perceptions are hard to change, especially when they reinforce some deep-seated wish in the psyches of the abused electorate. Invoke the scapegoat. Usually works.

Palin! Controversy generator.

The selection of Palin, a play to right of course, was also pretty desperate. But moreso, she creates,has created, a real stir. This brings out emotions. This foments an “Us/Them” scenario. That is a Rove specialty.

The trick is to keep throwing mud, stirring up stuff; see what new controversy can be used as a further wedge and to create further polarization; multiple polarizations; polarizations on top of polarizations.

In the end Rove is betting that the Repubs can benefit more from biased emotional reaction from whatever quarter and in whatever amount. Doesn’t have a damn thing to do with reason, although it will be dressed up as such, as needed.

Getting the opposition engaged in a heated emotional battle plays right into Rove’s scenario. Bring it all on! The more disorienting and irrational the more fodder for the emotional grinder.