John McCain’s slam on Barack Obama last week is the first prominent attack on Obama’s admitted drug use:

McCain responds to Obama in tough enough, if predictable, language:

“While Senator Obama’s two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation’s security.”

But, McCain being McCain, he can’t help himself and goes the next step in the statement’s kicker:

“By the way, Senator Obama, it’s a ‘flak’ jacket, not a ‘flack’ jacket.”

Which is to say, “there is only one of us in this argument who has ever worn the uniform.” (my words)

And if you still don’t get it, a McCain aide blows away the anthill with, well, a rocket.

“Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong.”

Given Obama’s racial background, the danger is that these attacks will be used to trigger ugly racial stereotypes about him, particularly once Republicans shift from bong jokes to talking about cocaine, which Obama admitted to trying in his first book.

Note also how McCain invokes the phrase “my service” as partial justification for his position, attempting to use his (laudable) experience as a Navy pilot in Vietnam to invalidate Obama’s critique of the war. But previous military experience is irrelevant to the issue at hand — there are veterans on both sides of the debate. More importantly, military service does not make one uniquely qualified to speak on matters of war; this is the same mistake that Democrats make when they attack “chickenhawks.”

(By the way, Media Matters points out that “flack jacket” and “flak jacket” are both valid spellings.)

Update 5/31 3:14 PM: I have posted a response to Matthew Yglesias.