So a number of commentators are unhappy with the dem response to this pig malarkey, complaining that it's somehow weak. But at least one suggests that maybe Obama set the lipstick line as a trap, so as to divert the Palin narrative and re-moor the McCain campaign in the gutter.
Who knows? But I do wonder: among those who don't think Obama has been aggressive enough, he is all but guaranteed to yield 99% of the available votes, and that's a pretty good reason not to give them what we want if doing serves some other purpose. These are the same people still smarting from Kerry's inaction against the swift boaters in 04, the hyper-informed and jittery liberals-- people like us. Our emotional state is understandable, sure, but it might also be self-defeating. We want the emotional satisfaction of a winning newscycle (though really, I'm not sure we lost this one). But what does the persuadable, swing state voter want?
In the end, we should want Obama to give them what they want. Assuming basic competency, I think that must be what his campaign means to be doing here-- the lipstick comment aside (or not). I don't think we should take his high-mindedness at face value anymore than we do when McCain tries to come off similarly.
This new wolf ad from McCain seems to affirm the strategy. I won't link to it. You can go find it if you don't know what I'm talking about. But the point is they're on the defensive about their own tactics.
I don't know if it will work. That's another question. But this ridiculous notion that we're not getting what we want from the campaign because of some fundamental character flaw endemic to our politicians and strategists is sort of silly. These people are professionals. At the very least they have a reason for what they're doing.
TALLY: $20 to Obama on 10/9.