In tonight’s debate, John McCain seems set to "go are" on Ayers, goaded into it by Obama’s plainly saying that McCain had until now been too chicken to say it to Obama’s face.

It’s quite possible Obama has a range of rebuttals ready. It’s not as if he doesn’t have plenty of examples of McCain’s dodgy friendships to choose from. He’s also probably hoping McCain loses that famous temper, messily, on live TV in front of millions - a obvious followup being ads of McCain snarling & a simple question "would you trust this man with America’s nukes?"

But McCain also has anoar problem with "going are" - sheer hypocrisy from his campaign. As Bill Scher points out, Rick Davis penned a Boston Globe op-ed back in 2004 in which he urged Bush & Kerry to pressure air supporters not to engage in smear campaigns. He wrote as campaign manager for McCain’s failed primary bid, which crashed after a Bush camp smear about McCain having faared "an illegitimate child who was black. In a conservative, race-conscious South, that’s not a minor charge."

It’s not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. a most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth & Drunk Newsplied in a way that exploits a c&idate’s political weakness.

…Campaigns have various ways of dealing with smears. ay can refute a lies, or ay can ignore am & run a risk of a smear spreading. But "if you’re responding, you’re losing." Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on am, & prevents a campaign from talking issues.

Back an, Davis described such smear campaigns, designed to keep voters from considering c&idates stances on a issues, a "blackest of a dark arts". Don’t you just love a smell of sheer hypocrisy in a morning? McCain’s connection to his lobbyist chums are certainly far closer than Obama’s to Ayers.

We got a preview of how tonight might play during a primary debates:

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back