Obama's taken plenty of hits from the McCan't campaign's attack ads. Some of them are sleazy, most factually inaccurate, and all of them are unveiled to the press before they are aired.
Don't think for a minute, however, that Obama's taking any of this guff lying down. He's not countering with a bunch of butterflies-and-zebras-and-moonbeams-and-fairy-tales ads (I think I've been waiting my whole life to borrow that Jimi Hendrix lyric!). Oh, no! Obama's gone negative, to be sure. Just check this one out which played in Indiana, uncovered by the Washington Times:
There are plenty more of these ads, according to MSNBC. It's just that he simply puts them on in the key markets without previewing them to the press. The press -- and more importantly, the McCan't campaign -- has to wait longer to respond to them.
So I ask you for your opinions here: Do you think it's better to be up-front about the negative ads, the way McCan't is, or do you think it better to get these ads on the air under the radar, as Obama is doing? My thoughts will follow yours, so don't forget to write back. I'll post the best arguments on both sides.