Then again, the Ayers attack does in essence become a smear if you don't frame the argument properly - and having just watched McCain on Letterman it is clear McCain doesn't have the ability to frame the argument properly - it's becoming clear that McCain lacks the skill of coherent, nuanced, well reasoned verbal argumentation. Without this skill you're never gonna break down the Obama facade. I believe Hillary definitely had the ability, but she was constrained by the limitations of the Democratic primary, ie to break down Obama's bullshit she would have had to attack the too liberal sentiments which define the extreme left of the party and that of course would have cooked her chances. For example on the war, she was constantly being forced into a position of essentially apologizing for her vote; she resisted, because she knew the yes vote was the right thing to do and Obama's opposition was self serving, shallow and not especially logical - but she couldn't make this argument because it would have doomed her.
That McCain, operating without such restraints, can't make the argument is revealing - and that's why he's losing. The Ayers attack is a perfect example of his flawed approach - you have to frame the argument as being about Obama's associations with, not Ayers in particular, but the extremes of liberalism in general, and it's an argument that cannot be made without referencing Wright, because you have to demonstrate a pattern to Obama's associations, and that then allows you to break down the Obama facade - because once you've established a pattern there are only three plausible explanations of it: Obama's association with these groups had nothing to do with ideology - a specious claim; Obama sympathized with their ideology, which would be bad; Obama used them to promote his political career - which would be fine, but also of course completely contrary to his message.
But McCain refuses to discuss Wright. That's stupid - absolutely no point talking about Ayers if you're not gonna talk about Wright.
