I hope that the current silence regarding McCain's POW weaknesses is a result of some deliberate stalling by the Democratic Party.  I think Democrats have a Swiftboat opportunity in their sights this year, although this one would actually be based on the truth about a presidential candidate's service in Vietnam.

The best way to do this would probably be an "independent" PAC using Vietnam vets and POWs who know McCain, or who are still pissed at him for screwing the POW/MIAs over in 1992, and/or for embracing his former captors for photo ops during his 1993 trip to Vietnam.

A Google search of "McCain POW Vietnam," brings up an even balance of criticism and praise.  The gist of the criticism is that McCain traded other POWs for more comfortable conditions; that he was never tortured; that in 1992 he stonewalled the release of POW documents (which people still looking for their loved ones needed, if only to better approach closure) because they would have included transcripts of his interviews with the NV (in which he is alleged to have traded info for comfort); and, of course, the fact (which he doesn't deny) that he signed a statement confessing to war crimes in exchange for his freedom.

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmcc ain.com/) is a clearinghouse for a lot of this stuff (and some farfetched theories that McCain is literally a Manchurian Candidate).  I would just love to see it turned on him.  And unlike the SBVFT, these guys have been going after McCain since the early 90s, including during his primary campaign in 1999.  They have an established record and are well-known in the POW/MIA community.

The disadvantage this tack would have in comparison to SBVFT is that this is based on an ugly truth, rather than an senstational lie.  The infotainers on cable and the networks tend to prefer their scandals factually and morally simple, with the facts debatable and moral consequences binary.  The print media might be able to run with the moral consequences if McCain was in fact a very poor POW, but TV can't hold a thought for more than 90 seconds.  I hate McCain and think he has about as much courage, strength, and character as Khruschev, but I can't say that I wouldn't have cracked, too.  Then again, I would've ruled out a career in politics based on a war hero myth if I had admitted to being a terrorist just so I could go home.

I'm guessing that some of the criticism is true (with the exception of those who believe he is actually a Communist droid).  His record at Annapolis shows that he didn't take military service very seriously during those formative years, and his situation in the military (McCain's father was commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, including Vietnam, during the war) is essentially analagous to W's position in politics and industry--both their daddies ruled the world and the privileges they got made them soft.

I don't think Obama can do it.  But even if he does, considering other contenders at this point might help to groom potential running mates.

What makes a good (vice) presidential candidate?  Looks, age, experience, personality, and concealability.  Who ranks as a success under these combined criteria?  Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina.

1993-2001:  Attorney General
2001-2009:  Governor