Strategy one is the more plausible one.

Rush and the rest of the right talkers have been criticizing Mccain for years for being a " maverick " and a lot of their base believe it.

So strategy two would be a bad one in my opinion.

I am not saying strategy 1 would work because Mccain seems to have a reservoir of " maverickness " with a large segment of the populace , but I would go with the strategy if I was running a campaign .

I say stick with number 1. the dems stick to their guns and keep painting him as BUSH III while republicans like Rush attack him from the conservative end.

He can never win, he is getting attacked on two fronts; the left and right hate him;

Strategy one for the win.

Voters (especially die-hards on the edges) have long memories and their turnout will be depressed regardless.

Even if we assume strategy 2 would work, with Bush's anemic approval ratings, it's better to mobilize the 65% strongly against him instead of depress the 30% for him.

it has the added benefit of taking McCain out of his comfort zone and causing unforced errors like what he did on MTP.

I don't think either are great.  Obama should ask the Ronald Reagan question: are you better off today than you were four years ago?  John McCain is running for Herbert Hoover's second term.

If he says this enough times, voters who are undecided will jump during the last two weeks (as happened with Reagan, and I don't think the reason was all that mysterious: if this is the status quo why not take a chance on the new guy).

I don't think we have to limit ourselves only to one.  I say hammer him mostly with the first, in order to keep most left-leaning people on our side, but every so often mix it up with the backstabbing stuff in order to keep morale low.  My assumption is that enthusiasm generally must come from within a party (here, the Republicans), not be imposed on it from outside.  So, attacking him with tactic #1 won't appreciably make Republicans more enthusiastic about him.

You have listed but two of the many themes which will be used to defeat McCain. In addition to your two we can add the "better off" question, the age and senility issue, and his undisguised misogyny. I think the last will be most effective in rallying women to Obama during the pre-convention period. Whan asked "how do we beat the bitch" at a town hall McCain laughed and did not rebuke the questioner. He is known to have made (unfortunately not on tape) a truly disgusting joke about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. There are a handful of witnesses who are aware of him calling his wife a c**t because she painted her face like a trollop (also his words). And then there's the issue of his first wife who waited for him to come home like Penelope waited for Odysseus. But when he came home she has been in an accident and he set out immediately to find a newer, younger, model. All this has been documented. If you want Hillary's voters, nothing will be more effective than pointing out the disrespect that McCain has shown women over the past three decades.

Absolutely #1. Think about it, Bush's approval rating is what, 30%? 28%? There isn't much base left to rally.

Perhaps you should listen to the presumptive nominee:

"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon--that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first." Barack Obama June 3, 2008

I guess I don't believe he means this anymore than any of his supporters, but it would be nice as Bill Clintion said- that two people who love their country could just talk about the issues.

I would LOVE to see a campaign about the issues.

The answer is BOTH.  And both are possible because McCain moves his policy positions almost daily.  In addition, by selecting both, we can cast him as entirely unreliable.