So, McCain approved ads smearing Obama for his association with William Ayers, but didn't say anything to Obama's face during the debate.
Seems like either:
Is there an excluded middle I've missed?
Well, yeah. I think the most likely possibility is that McCain has lost control of his own campaign, and so the messages that he's saying in the debates aren't the same as the messages that his campaign staff are putting in TV ads. (edit: Now I'm sure. See my comment below.)
There's no dishonor in being an ineffective leader -- it's certainly better than being a 'hypocrite', a 'coward', or a 'traitor'. On the other hand, when you're running to become the leader of something really important (say, the country?), that's a devastating revelation.
Seems like either:
- McCain doesn't actually buy the claim that associating with Ayers means Obama's dangerous. This makes him a hypocrite for approving ads he doesn't stand behind.
or... - McCain does believe Obama is dangerous but lacked the courage to confront him face to face Tuesday night. This makes him a coward.
or... - McCain believes Obama is dangerous, had the courage to confront him, but decided not to out of political considerations. That's not putting "country first", and makes him a traitor.
Is there an excluded middle I've missed?
Well, yeah. I think the most likely possibility is that McCain has lost control of his own campaign, and so the messages that he's saying in the debates aren't the same as the messages that his campaign staff are putting in TV ads. (edit: Now I'm sure. See my comment below.)
There's no dishonor in being an ineffective leader -- it's certainly better than being a 'hypocrite', a 'coward', or a 'traitor'. On the other hand, when you're running to become the leader of something really important (say, the country?), that's a devastating revelation.