Bad advice from the NY Times?

Adam Brodsky:

IT'S always risky to believe The New York Times, and the paper's front-page lead story Wednesday - claiming John McCain's attacks have "backfired" - vividly illustrates why.

Imagine: The Times counseling McCain not to attack Barack Obama. That's a knee-slapper. The story, based on a Times/CBS News poll, actually refutes its own suggestions that McCain's jabs are boomeranging.

Nonetheless, the paper may have hit on a disconcerting trend: Large numbers of voters just aren't bothered by Obama's flaws.

Obama, the poll reports, led McCain by a whopping 14 percentage points - even though far more people (64 percent) thought McCain is well-prepared for the presidency than thought Obama is (51 percent).

Another finding, meanwhile, offers a key clue to Obama's popularity: Seven in 10 voters see his "temperament" and "personality" as well-suited for the Oval Office.

For months, critics have claimed he's all style and no substance. Apparently, style is winning.

Take McCain's "attacks." As the nation chooses its first new president since 9/11, McCain's criticisms - linking Obama, for instance, to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon - seem pertinent. Likewise, you'd think Americans would fret over Obama's planned tax hikes. Yet raising these points doesn't seem to faze most voters.

Again, the Times gets it wrong in claiming that doing so is costing McCain many votes. The paper supplies no evidence - and, in fact, admits that "the vast majority" of those polled had not changed their opinions of either candidate in the last few weeks. If only a few have shifted, then the recent "attacks" haven't really hurt McCain much, after all.

Then again, they haven't helped much either; all the polls have him trailing. The question is: Why haven't they?

Yes, the media gave Obama a free ride. Yes, the 72-year-old McCain isn't exactly blessed with powers of persuasion. Yes, he and his campaign pull punches - refusing, for example, to remind folks of Obama's long friendship with America-hating Jeremiah Wright. (McCain's problem isn't that he's too negative; if anything, it's that he's not negative enough.)

...

On the other hand, you can probably dismiss Obama's negatives and still wonder why he's ahead, given that he brings so few positives to the table: no national record, no great accomplishments, no experience.

...

It is because he does not move too fast and has a non scary smile.

Brodsky does raise a great point about the Times story on the negative attacks. It raises the question of just what the Times thinks would be helpful for the McCain campaign to do to oppose their chosen one.