by Mosheh Oinounou

In a memo released Friday, McCain Campaign Senior Adviser Steve Schmidt paints Barack Obama as a flip-flopper to end a week that started with the campaign using some of it’s strongest language to date to cast the Democrat as weak on terror and believer in a “September 10th mentality.”“As we scrutinize Barack Obama’s words, it is increasingly difficult for those of us with the responsibility of following this year’s election closely to discern what Obama truly believes at his core on the issues of great importance to the American people,” Schmidt writes in the memo-as-press release sent to reporters this morning. (Full Memo after jump)Feeling a little bit of deja vu?Schmidt, of course, was one of the key strategists for the Bush-Cheney 2004 messaging team that successfully depicted John Kerry as a flip-flopper who put America’s security at risk. Can that strategy work again?For his part, Obama has been making it a bit easy of late. Seeking to exploit Obama’s evolution on issues as he shifts into general election mode–when most candidates turn towards the center on issues to attract moderates and independents–the McCain campaign uses yesterday’s flip by Obama on public financing, as a jumping off point to delve into other recent Obama policy shifts on NAFTA, Jerusalem and energy.(In all fairness, we should note that McCain is also guilty of some election year moves to the right on offshore oil drilling, immigration and the Bush tax cuts–that Democrats are attempting to use to chip away at the McCain-as-straight talking maverick image the Arizona Republican has crafted for years.)While the McCain campaign has been hammering Obama for months on his lack of foreign policy experience–one of his greatest vulnerabilities–the flip-flop narrative is a newer phenomenon.McCain recently got into the mix himself for the first time at a June 6 press conference when asked about Obama’s backtrack on an “undivided” Jerusalem.“I can’t react to every comment that Senator Obama makes because it will probably change,” McCain told reporters, before also slamming his opponent for his rhetorical dance on negotiating with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.Obama is new to the national stage and has yet to firm up a narrative/image outside of “change” but will the flip-flop/words vs. actions label stick to the second straight Democratic nominee? Conversely, McCain has taken years to build up his reputation as an independent who will pave a middle path to achieve consensus, even sticking his finger in the eye of President Bush a few times, begging the question: can Democrats significantly damage his maverick label and succeed in casting him as Bush’s third term?The campaigns will be throwing every attack they have at one another during the next couple months to see what will stick for the general election. We shall see what works.Memo after the jump….To: Interested PartiesFrom: Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Senior AdvisorDate: June 20, 2008Re: Words MatterBarack Obama’s rapid ascent to the Democratic presidential nomination is nothing short of remarkable and historic. Much of this rise can be traced to the power of Barack Obama’s spoken and written words. As Barack Obama said during the primaries, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”Because of his rapid ascent and the relative lack of record from which the American people can judge, the words that Barack Obama uses deserve a level of scrutiny befitting the importance that he places on them. But when examined closely, more often than not these words are empty of any meaning in the light of his record and reality.As we scrutinize Barack Obama’s words, it is increasingly difficult for those of us with the responsibility of following this year’s election closely to discern what Obama truly believes at his core on the issues of great importance to the American people.Obama’s Words On Public Financing: Just yesterday, Barack Obama reversed his position on accepting general election public financing. This change in position comes after nearly two years of speaking to and signing his name to his commitment to the public financing system.In June 2006, Barack Obama said quite clearly, “I strongly support public financing”:OBAMA: “Well, I strongly support public financing. And I know [Senator] Dick [Durbin] does too. He’s going to have some things to say about it because when we were having - as you’ll recall - the major debates around lobbying reform, one of the things that Dick, I think, properly pointed out was that you can change the rules on lobbying here in Washington, but if we’re still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, that those with the most money are still going to have the most influence.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Constituents Breakfast, 6/29/06)In November 2007, Barack Obama signed his name to his commitment to accept public financing as his party’s general election nominee:QUESTION: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” OBAMA: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Presidential Candidate Questionnaire,” Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)In February 2008, Barack Obama said that he would meet and “sit down with John McCain” to discuss and negotiate public financing were he to be his party’s nominee:NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.” Obama: “What I - what I have said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.” (Democratic Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0Yet, in the end, Barack Obama’s words were empty and he decided to break his pledge to accept public financing in the general election.Obama’s Words On Running A Different Type Of Campaign: The McCain campaign has made a good faith effort to reach out to Barack Obama offering to go Iraq together and hold 10 joint town hall meetings. These offers came after Barack Obama pledged to meet “anywhere, anytime”:OBAMA: “I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed.” (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/0However, Barack Obama has rejected each and every offer to raise the dialogue in this campaign. As the St. Petersburg Times wrote today, Barack Obama’s words come down to “cynical political calculations,” not the new politics he promised:“Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain’s greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Big Words Ring Hollow,” St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/0Obama’s Words On The 2005 Energy Bill: As part of his standard stump speech, Barack Obama criticizes the Bush-Cheney energy policy. However, not spoken is the fact that he voted for the Bush-Cheney energy policy in 2005.On the campaign trail, Barack Obama has criticized the Bush-Cheney energy bill:OBAMA: “When Bush assigned Cheney to create energy policy, he met with the environmental groups once, the renewable energy groups once, he met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. Washington has become so dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, that the voices of the American people are no longer heard.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Detroit, MI, 6/16/0This is good rhetoric but it does not match the record. The energy policy that he assails for being a Bush-Cheney creation for the benefit of the oil companies is the very same energy policy he voted for in the 2005 Energy Bill. Again, Barack Obama’s words on energy are empty and actually contrary to his own public record.Obama’s Words On Trade: Barack Obama claims that he believes in free trade. However, a headline in the Detroit Free Press captures the internal conflict of Barack Obama’s words - “Obama Tries to Have it Both Ways on Free Trade Issue.” Barack Obama says, “I believe in free trade” but “then he reverted to the anti-trade rhetoric of the primaries.” We all recall Obama adviser Austin Goolsbee dismissing his candidate’s own rhetoric as primary politics. In light of this, Barack Obama’s words on the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deserve even greater scrutiny.During the primaries, Barack Obama pledged to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA:NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?” OBAMA: “I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/0However, in the general election, Barack Obama is backing off these words which were pretty clear. Now, Barack Obama says his words are not to be believed if they are “overheated and amplified.”“In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. ‘Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.” (Nina Easton, “Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All,” Fortune, 6/18/0Obama’s Words On His Tax Hikes: Barack Obama has made tax increases a centerpiece of his economic agenda. However, when asked by CNBC’s John Harwood if he would be willing to hold off on raising taxes if he thought they might harm the economy, Barack Obama said:OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important.” (CNBC, 6/9/0This is a tacit acknowledgment that his tax increases would hurt the economy and American workers. Likewise, Barack Obama consistently attacks John McCain for favoring “tax breaks to corporations.” Yet, he recently told The Wall Street Journal that he too was considering cutting corporate taxes. Just last month, Barack Obama called corporate tax cuts “the exact wrong prescription for America.” On one day, Barack Obama took two positions on one issue, again leaving observers and voters unsure of what he really believes.Obama’s Words On Iraq: Throughout the primaries, Barack Obama has been determined to withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences or the facts on the ground. This week, Barack Obama talked with the Iraqi Foreign Minister. According to The Washington Post, the Foreign Minister left the conversation “reassured” and thinking “that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.”The ABC News headline captures this perplexing issue clearly: “Obama and Iraqi Foreign Minister have Different Memories of their Conversation.” In our foreign policy, we cannot afford a president whose public words are discounted by allies and enemies alike.Obama’s Words On Jerusalem: For weeks, debate has swirled around Barack Obama’s use of the word “undivided” in his speech before the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference. In the end, the American people are left with a confused position that is constantly being reinterpreted by advisors because “undivided” was nothing more than an empty word with great symbolism but no weight.Before the Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama clearly said that Jerusalem should be the “undivided” capital of Israel. Barack Obama and his advisers knew what this word would mean to his audience.OBAMA: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/0Yet, only a day later, Barack Obama said the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians. Barack Obama was no longer prepared to say that Jerusalem should be undivided.CNN’S CANDY CROWLEY: “I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?” OBAMA: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 6/5/0