Obama is a poker player. Only bluff when you are 100% positive it will work. I guarantee you that the campaign saw this as a win-win opportunity, no matter what. Watch.

Just like Kevin to over think this thing.

Either that or they're trying to fake McCain into thinking they have a dynamite response, thus scaring him into not bringing it up. Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory -- and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him.

This brings to mind both Animal House and "double secret probation" and Airplane and turning on the landing lights, "No. That's exactly what they think we will do!"

Check and Mate The Obama campaign has showed intelligence planning and timing once again. They backed that sorry ass into a corner with a subject hat McNasty was getting no traction with anyway. Perfect

I think Obama has a super comeback he's itching to use. Just like he had his own bracelet story ready to neutralize McCain's bracelet story.

He's got something. I'm sure of it!

In this case, it's vitally important to remember that while McCain's game is craps, Obama's game is poker. So either he's bluffing REALLY well (and boy, is McCain ever a bluffable opponent!) or he's got a royal flush going on. Knowing what we know about how carefully, skillfully and, well, winningly Obama has run this interminable campaign, I'd bank on the latter. If I were a betting man, I'd bet my left kidney that Obama is not bluffing, and that McCain just made himself available for the coup-de-grace.

By the way, am I the only one who is glad at the prospect of having Obama on the international stage as the Diplomat in Chief? The "rogue" statesmen won't even know where his buttons are, let alone how to press 'em. (McCain, on the other hand, is one big huge red button.)

I think tomorrow's debate viewership is going to top the 100,000,000 mark.

I'm not trying to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but what I think he's saying here
"So, y'know, and I think he's probably ensured that it will come up this time."
is that Schieffer is now almost definitely going to ask about Ayers. I don't read it as McCain standing up to Obama and saying 'yeah I'm bringing it up no matter what.'

The best outcome would be that Schieffer never mentions it, and McCain is left to introduce it himself.

Maybe they're just trying to get him angry and focused on irrelevant crud to distract him from any possible effective attack or policy statement? That strategy works with crazies.

My guess is Ayers will be brought up by the moderator, so McCain won't have to bring it up himself. At that point I expect a repeat of the same incoherence we've been seeing, with McCain claiming not to care about Ayers while pressing an Ayers-based attack. Obama will have lots of choices in how to respond, but I imagine we'll get a "more in sorrow than anger" tone. The whole thing will not end up helping McCain.

How about the fact that the terrorist "palled around with" Republicans on the same board, which was started by the spouse of a McCain supporter?
I think that's why McCain wants to avoid it, although that particular response by Obama might not be the most direct, but it's true.

McCain is going to look bad if he brings it up, no matter what, because that negative crap doesn't work in general, and it just makes him look more desperate. Accusing someone of being in league with terrorists just sounds ridiculous and he knows it.

Bluff or not, McCain has to make something happen in this last debate. My sense is that there's nothing left to be said by McCain that would have any real impact upon the undecided voter, so "making something happen," will devolve into "talking crazy trash."

I'd love to see Obama deliver a coup de grace, but McCain's death by a thousand cuts, many self-inflicted, is equally effective.

"Fool!" cried the hunchback. "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!!'"

I'm not willing to call this a leveraged victory for Obama. Let's see how it plays out first.

Obama is going to make McCain look foolish. He can point out that the Annenberg Challenge was organized by a conservative Republican and continues to be administered by his daughter, a McCain supporter, and its board consisted of mostly conservative Republicans like the publisher of the Chicago Trib and University Presidents. He can ask McCain if he considers Lenore Annenberg someone who palls around with terrorists and will return her donations, ditto for the ChiTrib publisher and would reject the ChiTrib endoprsement (they have never endorsed a Dem). He could really make McCain look stupid for these attacks. I think he is baiting McCain for another body blow, like the "erratic" bit last debate.

I guess I just don't feel that Obama needs a crushing response to this nonsense--McCain only hurts himself by bringing it up, just as it's hurt him when he talks about it outside the debates.

Barack has continued to amaze me, and out-think me (fancy that!), so I wouldn't begin to fathom a guess as to what happens next. I do know this: it's Mac's last stand so even if he doesn't win the debate, he'll succeed in rousing the base, as if they weren't inflamed enough.

Honestly? Barack's ability to handle McCain is not what keeps me up at night. It's what McCain's doing to fuel this faction that does.

Toothpaste out of tube. November 4th has the potential to be both victorious and disastrous. That scares me most of all.

Rachael Maddow! Talk me down!

It's amazing how suggestible insecure people really are. And it's amusing to see McCain still blaming his bad behavior on Obama. :D

He's not limited to one response to Ayers, is he? Cause then he'd have to choose among The Keating Five, Pastor Hagee, G. Gordon Liddy, the McCain delegate who publicly praised (right in front of McCain) the woman who shot the doctor who performed abortions (the praiser later became a McCain delegate), the right-wing wackadoodle group McCain sat on the board of...

Well, I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn't willing to say it to my face,"
Obama is not daring mccain. He is acting presidential. When anyone attacks the charater of a man he must respond. For 7 years bush has allowed every dictator/wanabe terroist/osama call him every thing but a child of god. bush let osama call him out what 2/3 times a year in his videos and never said one word defend himself or the American people. It is time for change.

If McCain brings Ayers up in the debate, he'd be done if I were Obama. I'd answer very quickly:

"The Bill Ayers I know is a professor of Education at the University of Illinios and considered to be one the top experts on education in this country. This is the person I interacted with when I worked on the bi-partisan, conservative funded, agency assisting the poor and disenfranchised. Only later did I find out Bill Ayers' background and his association with the Weather Underground. My disappointment with his actions as a member of that group cannot be described, as they are completely out of character with the man that I, and the University of Illinois know today. Fortunately, Bill Ayers has repaid his debt to society, for his actions that took place when I was eight years of age, and he has become an important and valued member of the faculty at one of the country's top schools.

Now John, when you consider all of the problems that face this country, the economic crisis, the two failing wars, the failing healthcare system, on so on, that with all of these problems that face the average American that you are not thinking that my personal association with a prominent university professor is worthy of discussion tonight? Tell me that you have more important issues to debate than the past associations either of have. Please tell the American people that you have actual solutions to the many problems that face this country."

With that, John McCain's hopes for President are done, and with that, so is his career representing the state of Arizona.

Yes, McCain is falling into Obama's trap: he knows
that McCain knows he knows and knows that his knowing will trip of his knowing that he knows what he knows. Clear?

Obama is going to make McCain look foolish.

McCain is ALREADY foolish for going for these attacks. Anyone with two working brain cells know there's nothing to these assertions. As Mimikatz pointed out, Ayers got funded with Republican money, helped recruit a Republican-oriented board, and was well known AND ACCEPTED, at the time, in Chicago.

Basically, McCain is saying you need to write off ALL OF CHICAGO as terrorist and radical.

Yeah. Right. Middle America is gonna go for that, fershure.....

I think Obama has just been waiting for McCain to blunder into some mention of Ayers. Then he can:

1. Point to the other people serving with the "unrepentant terrorist" -- Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. That's a scary bunch you got right there, huh John-Boy?

2. Point out that just because someone has done bad things in the past, that should never stop you from working with that person to do good in the present. Even if that person still holds disagreeable ideas. And doing good for education in Chicago was much more important that making some empty grandstanding gesture and refusing to work on any project that Ayers was involved with.

Sorry--Lenore Annenberg is Walter's widow. She has been a contributor to GOP candidates, though, including McCain.

And, look Mark, it's not that I give a damn about some old washed-up terrorist..."

If he didn't have a withering comeback, he sure has one now.

"Let me get this straight, John. YOU don't give a damn about Ayers. I don't give a damn about him. But for some reason you haven't explained, everyone ELSE should care deeply about this man who did something exceptionally foolish almost 40 years ago when I was 8 years old. I'd ask you to explain your reasoning except that neither of us gives a damn."

My bet is on "crush"

My guess is Ayers will be brought up by the moderator, so McCain won't have to bring it up himself. . . . The whole thing will not end up helping McCain. Posted by: jimBOB CH

It would be fun, but perhaps lost on the great unwashed and uninformed masses, for Obama to take a trip down memory lane going back to WWII for Rethug double-dealing, beginning with Prescott Bush and the Nazis. Then he could discuss Iran-Contra. Then have a visual aid in the form of that photograph of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, and conclude by stating that sometimes even a old and somewhat retarded dogs learn new tricks with the Bush administration finally starting dialogues with N. Korea and Iran, nations linked to terrorism.

The problem with this is that you wouldn't have any "centerist" or right wing commentators left for post-debate analysis because most of their heads would have exploded. At the very least, many would have had to go change their pants.

My opinion (stolen from Fark or something) is that McCain is desperate to increase the viewership of this final debate, in hopes of finally beating Obama. Their ticket is 0-for-3 so far, but he's feeling, uh, good.

Obama might also use the occasion to talk about how vitriolic political environments and government distrust cause people to do horrible things.

hey, when you wave the red flag in front of the bull, he always charges, even though it is to his death.

seriously, are there any undecided voters left out there?

Years ago I worked with a guy who lost his temper often. He invited me one day to come over to his place to have a beer and meet his girlfriend. I hadn't been there ten minutes when he lost his temper with her.
"Why do you keep pissing me off?" he shouted.
She smiled sweetly and answered "Because it's so easy"

Obama can say:

Senator McCain, as you are well aware I have repeatedly, publicly denounced the reprehensible activities of Bill Ayers -- which occurred when I was eight years old.

Senator McCain, you are also well aware that I served alongside Mr. Ayers on the board of an educational reform organization that was headed by Leonore Annenberg, who was a close personal friend of Ronald Reagan and served in the State Department during the Reagan administration, and who is also one of your most distinguished supporters as your campaign was proud to announce a couple of weeks ago.

Like your supporter Mrs. Annenberg, I had, and still have, every reason to believe that Mr. Ayers has been rehabilitated. Even the Federal prosecutor who prosecuted Mr. Ayers for his activities 40 years ago wrote in a letter to The New York Times that he has been pleased to learn that Mr. Ayers has become a responsible and productive citizen.

But of course we aren't really talking about Bill Ayers here -- you yourself have stated that you don't care about Bill Ayers.

What we are talking about is the effort by your campaign to suggest to the American people that I am a terrorist sympathizer, if not an actual terrorist. What we are talking about is the campaign of smears and fear mongering that has reached the point where you, yourself, had to correct one of your own supporters, on live television in front of a national audience, when she said that she is afraid of me because she has been told that I am an "Arab".

So, let me ask you right now, Senator McCain. Will you stand here tonight, and tell the American people, to their faces, that you believe I am a terrorist sympathizer?

If Schieffer brings it up instead of McCain, the correct response for Obama is to repeat his previous explanations, patiently, with dates. Then turn to McCain and ask McCain directly if he's got something more specific in mind.

There isn't something unfathomably subtle about dealing with Ayers. The McCain aim is simple: they want to make something out of nothing. Obama doesn't need a Joseph Welch/McCarthy squashing. Just the facts, Ma'am.

The tricksy-tricksy stuff is all McCain/GOP stuff. I could imagine, McCain prefacing his remarks by eating some humble pie and shedding a few crocodile tears (to coin a couple of phrases) over his own involvement with the Keating scandal. Rhetorically, to make it appear that he (McCain) has bared his soul about his own past while Obama is hiding something about his. McCain will want to turn the event into a conversion/save-your-soul moment for Obama. Then, when Obama doesn't to make hay later in the GOP media. The proper response remains the same. Repeat the obvious: the public is familiar with McCain's past (though they probably aren't), but there's nothing in the Ayers/Obama relationship beyond serving on boards together; by the time he got to know Ayers, he'd renounced his past (the 2001 quote came AFTERWARDS) and was a respected professor of education. Mention the Annenberg Foundation -- a Republican organization -- and -- btw -- its links to McCain. Mention McCain's own speech before ACORN. Just calmly go through the laundry list in a good-for-the-goose manner. If Schieffer tries to call time, let him know that the issue has been percolating long enough and needs to be aired.

Hopefully, though, McCain won't be able to eat the humble pie -- he's too vain. And McCain will simply resort to the sarcasm we all saw in the "THAT one" moment. Then, steam will vent from McCain's ears like a factory whistle and he'll self-destruct.

When the issue comes up Obama responds thusly:

John, throughout this campaign I have tried to remain focused on the business of the people. This election is not about you or me. This election is about the struggles and hopes of the people of this great country. And so I would much rather we discuss our policy positions or our judgments on the important issues that confront us. However, because you continue to raise baseless accusations and smears, I am compelled to respond. To the American people, I apologize on behalf of John McCain for the baseless political attacks that have characterized his campaign. But because John is determined to make this a debate about character, I am forced to remind the American people about John's indiscretions.

While many Americans are aware, some may not know that in the late 80's and early 90's John received tens of thousands of dollars of cash and untold gifts from a man named Charles Keating. In return, John intervened multiple times on Keating's behalf to prevent regulation of Keating's savings and loan. Because of John's intervention the oversight of Keating's S&L was delayed for years. Ultimately, Keating's S&L failed, costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Senator McCain was reprimanded before the Senate for his direct involvement in the most expensive bailout, to that date, in American history.

And so I do not intend to be lectured about my character or judgment from a man who has been reprimanded by the United States Senate. The American people deserve a president who has the judgment to solve economic crisis, not a man whose direct involvement with a corrupt banker and felon contributed to the biggest financial debacle of the previous century.

John, I think the shameless and untrue claims made by you and your campaign are beneath your dignity. But if you are bound and determined to make the last few weeks of this campaign a referendum on character, then I will unhappily play your game. And while you may continue to lie about my past, I will simply ask the American people to read the Congressional Record from
1989 and 1990. In the public record of the United States Congress the American people will learn everything they need to know about your judgment and character.

Sorry--Lenore Annenberg is Walter's widow. She has been a contributor to GOP candidates, though, including McCain. Posted by: Mimikatz

Not a bright woman, is she?. This helps explain why so much of NPR and PBS is so bad. For every progressive group that supports public broadcasting there are five like Exxon-Mobile, ADM, and the Anneberg Trust with much deeper pockets.

After the Fannie/Freddie/Rick Davis debacle, I'm suspecting that there's another ex-Weatherman living in Arizona and/or serving on some board with McCain.

McCain never thought anything through in his whole life, and he's not going to start now, he'll just fly low straight into the wires ...

Lanny - love that response. Reminds me of "A few good men" except that Obama is unlikely to get caught like Jack was.

It's probably the wrong way to go, but he could also bring up McCain standing with that group in Oregon praising that woman that had shot an abortion doctor.

Second thought - don't pound on McCain's associations - not very presidential - just show that his argument is childish. There, I worked it through all on my own. :)

The Obama campaign has a radio spot up in Wisconsin that deals directly with the Ayer's attack. Perhaps Obama will bring it up at the debate before McCain even has a chance and steals his thunder.

I didn't like it especially when Biden took his jacket off during one of his speeches implying a fight. Remember the dems are supposed to be the grownups. I think they are getting a bit too cocky. I wish they'd save it for after the election.

LOL, a friend shared an email he had gotten that stated that "factcheck.org is the Annenberg Foundation, founded by terrorists who put Obama in office in the first place". It also says we should "google it for ourselves".

The people doing this obviously assume people will NOT do "the google"... but I did and found several links to sites that said that Walter Annenberg was a conservative Republican, a diplomat, publisher and philanthropist. So is "conservative Republican" the new terrorist? (Thanks to others here who have set the record straight on this... and I really hope McCain brings up Ayers. The Obama response should be fun.)

There's no question that the Obama campaign has a responce ready and waiting to fire off. Another thing calling McCain out is it oddly puts the McCain camp on the defensive. He's been called out. No matter if he brings it up or the moderator brings it up, McCain will be in a position to justify himself. The McCain camp is probably working overtime trying to figure out how to handle it, which would take their focus off of the issues that the debate will center around.

If Obama answers in a measured, reasonable fashion and McCain looks furtive, dodgy and uncomfortable it will not be a good moment for the Sen. from Arizona.

I could imagine, McCain prefacing his remarks by eating some humble pie and shedding a few crocodile tears (to coin a couple of phrases) over his own involvement with the Keating scandal. Rhetorically, to make it appear that he (McCain) has bared his soul about his own past while Obama is hiding something about his. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis

But JD, that's setting up a really weak false equivalency. McCain was censured by the Senate for being involved closely with someone committing a crime. Someone he took campaign contributions from. Someone he took family vacations with.

Obama was 8-years old when Ayers did his deeds. Only an idiot would bring up something like the Keating Five. I don't think he'll purposely do that. It's not like a Brittney Spears comeback. The stakes are a little higher here and the Rethug mantra since Reagan has been admit nothing, apologize for nothing.

No maverick... just a typical politician. Devastating new article on Palin:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah/5
The Book of Sarah (Palin)
Strafing the Palin record
By Wayne Barrett

McCain has been pulling the 'risky' card by saying he doesn't care about Ayers, but insisting instead that Obama needs to be "more transparent" about the truth, that he started his career in this guy's living room and yet he's denying it...

He's also been playing the 'risky card' with regards to the fact that Obama is the new, unknown one of the most tax and spend LIBERALS in the congress..
blathering on today:
You know my record, you don't know his aside from all these times he voted for more taxes...

I imagine these two points will be hounded in again and again tomorrow night, along with the overly idealistic, naive speil (McCain essentally today that Obama asks folks to go by blind faith).

McCain sniffed too much napalm in the '60s. Following his campaign, I find myself consulting a
calender to be assured that indeed four decades have passed since the Vietnam era.

Shall I rummage through the attic for my beads and
granny glasses? Damn, how I regret letting my Disraeli Gears album go at that yard sale in 1977!

Ah, what faded memories the McCain campaign dregs up.

All Obama has to do is show that Ayers is irrelevant and Keating is not. Game. Set. Match.

With that, John McCain's hopes for President are done, and with that, so is his career representing the state of Arizona. Posted by: Lanny

I wouldn't hold your breath on the latter. Arizona is a very backward state with most of its congressional delegation cut from the same cloth as McCain.

That being said, I do not understand how Nepolitano got elected. She's by far the most popular politician in the state, and I thought she was probably a short list candidate for VP. Might have been until McCain chose Palin. However copy-cat that would have looked, she'd could have gotten under Palin's skin in ways that no male candidate would dare.

Tomorrow night:

Creepy grin. "MY fiends I don't care if Sen. Obama started his career in the living room of a washed up terrorist. I'm running a respectful campaign..."

Meanwhile in the parking lot: Sarah Palin in a cage frothing at the mouth, screaming "ARAB!! TERRORIST!!" While throwing her own feces at Chris Mathews.

Somewhat off topic:

Credit where credit is do.
All good teachers know about Annenberg online media:

http://www.learner.org/channel/channel.html

That's great stuff.
And it is free. Hard to beat.

Let's see. Obama sat on a board with Ayers. McCain chose an AIP sympathizer to run with him for POTUS.

I'm with JimBob @12:46 - Bob Scheiffer is sure to bring up Ayers - Bob kind of revealed his bias during his attack on General Wes Clark the other day.

McCain has been pulling the 'risky' card by saying he doesn't care about Ayers, but insisting instead that Obama needs to be "more transparent" about the truth,

Well, Obama SHOULD be ashamed. He started his career with a guy whose pockets are FULL of Republican loot.

Didn't see this upthread...

Ben Smith on Barack's Ayers ad:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obamas_Ayers_ad.html?showall

Look who else was on the board of the foundation with Bill Ayers:

Let’s look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain.

Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism, and a host of other mainstream folks.

“The whole idea of it being radical when it was this tie of blue-chip, white-collar, CEOs and civic leaders is just ridiculous,” said the foundation’s former development director, Marianne Philbin.

The vast majority of the foundation’s external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children’s Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

We could go on and on with evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenger was a rather vanilla charitable group. For example, under the deal with Annenberg every dollar from him had to be matched by two from elsewhere. The co-funders were a host of respected, mainstream institutions, such as the National Science Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Chicago Public Schools.

In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals.

Read the full article at http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmsp.....38;cpage=3

I won't add to the already good suggestions above, but I will say that this is Obama's opportunity to neutralize the Ayers attack, and he effectively lured McCain into participating in it.

That's strategy my friends, not tactics!

Let's see what really happens tonight, though.

I expect McCain might also spin the comment about guns and bitterness Obama made months ago.

But whatever, Obama will be ready.

Yes, bringing up the other members of the board is perfect.

Point. Game. Set. Match.

And, hopefully, election

Surely even McCain knows that he will get his hat handed to him if he brings up the Ayers silliness. My gut tells me that he skips Ayers and goes directly to Reverend Wright. This is, of course, also an unfair game of "association tag," but the response (much like the "surge" issue) is necessarily more nuanced for Obama, and he has to not only have a good answer but one simple enough for the low-information voters who might be watching. If we do not hear about Wright at the debate, I'm be amazed if he is not brought out on the campaign trail by Friday, with the hope of blurring the debate aftermath.

You know what? Obama doesn't need a DYNAMITE response. All he needs to say is: "Yup, they are focused on Ayers while I am focused on the American people" and be done with it.

This is lose - lose - lose for McCain because no one gives two shits about Ayers. Except perhaps for Steve Schmidt, whose rep is now in the toilet, at least for the immediate future.

I expect McCain might also spin the comment about guns and bitterness Obama made months ago.
Posted by:

This is the only really stupid (politically) thing I can remember Obama saying. And while it's true, there is a certain percentage of undecided voters who probably fit in the category. No need to piss them off now. Wait until Barack is elected and One World government is reality. Then we can take all their guns away.

Why are you all spouting that Obama has some secret tactic to make McCain look foolish about Ayers? It's called truth...nothing there is nothing there no matter how McCain tries to spin it. Everything McCain and Palin imply about Ayers/Obama relationship are lies and fear mongering. So how is McCain going to make something out of nothing without looking like a fool. There are no secret strategies here. If McCain is dumb enough to point to the emperor's clothes Obama will merely point out he's not wearing any.
I agree that Schiffer will bring Ayers up so McCain doesn't have to but really what is he going to say...accuse Obama of "palling around with terrorists"??? ...because Obama will only have to point out that is what has been said and it is obviously a smear. The republican circus is about to leave government permanently and the racist bigots supporters with them. That's exciting. Palin's corruption is slowly being exposed and her hateful mouth will not have to be tolerated much longer anyway...(free huse anyone...free pay...fire and hire based on likes and dislikes....oh the national hypocrisy is exposed.

btw-if Schiffer brings it up and asks Obama about his reaction so that McCain only has to respond that still makes McCain a coward because he had someone else bring it up for him. "You ask him about it and after he answers I'll just ask questions." After all, the courts did not convict Ayers of it did they? Ayers is still a distraction from the issues and McCain loses on the issues.

"And the third? I guess they must be really sure they have a dynamite response ready in case McCain decides to unload next Wednesday. Either that or they're trying to fake McCain into thinking they have a dynamite response, thus scaring him into not bringing it up. Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory -- and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him."

Steve - that sounds like "Van" Johnson describing the strategy behind the "fake Rock Ridge" in Blazing Saddles.

I wouldn't hold your breath on the latter. Arizona is a very backward state with most of its congressional delegation cut from the same cloth as McCain.

From what I've seen while visiting my parents in Arizona, a lot of people consider McCain to be too liberal. Yes, that's right, they want a "real conservative" like Sarah Palin and not a fake one like McCain.

There's a reason I never moved to Phoenix even though my parents kept asking me to ...

McCain is an idiot for rising to the bait, because if he brings up Ayres (Schieffer won't directly do it himself, I'm all but certain) all Obama needs to do is dismiss such guilt-by-association attacks and say the American people need a President who isn't going to stoop to such partisan bitterness.

"If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him."

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Why are you all spouting that Obama has some secret tactic to make McCain look foolish about Ayers? Posted by: bjobotts

I don't think anyone is terming it a "secret tactic." It's just that he'll strike the pathetic old wretch in a verbal fashion that will buckle his knees and/or reveal his borderline incontinence. It will be a verbal coup de'grace so devastating that McCain will leave the stage two inches shorter.

I think that's what people mean.

The follow-up line McCain's been using lately after "I don't care about a washed-up terrorist" essentially accuses Obama of lying about Ayers.

That's what Obama has to respond to in order to defend his honor and show himself capable of channeled, righteous anger -- I think the American people still do want to see something like that from him -- and the number of rhetorical opportunities for a response are nearly infinite.

I'd say all 3 are probable, and w/ the news about McCain's transition head and his lobbying for Saddam - there's a ripe little barb waiting to be tossed. Obama will offhandedly remark how he hasn't brought up the ties, because the nation is interested in what the candidates are doing/proposing, not supposed negative associations from decades ago or more recently.

Either way, I agree - the moderator will probably bring it up and McCain will blow it one way or another.

When Dems like me were panicking in early September, one of the blogs I read brought up the old Ali "Rope a Dope" theory; let your opponent punch himself out, making it easier for a decisive KNOCKOUT!

Obama has run this campaign strategy all year, starting with Hillary, and ending with McSHAME.

Obama is Begging McSHAME to bring up Ayres. This will be the KNOCKOUT punch we have all been waiting for.

OT: This experience crap about experience being the end-all requirement for office is BS. For anyone, to keep saying that even Palin has more experience than Obama, negates this requirement decisively.

EXPERIENCE: Who has run the best campaign( management skills with strategic thinking) this cycle. He beats the Clinton "Machine", and now he is destroying the Repugs and their old tired fears and ideas on what makes America tick.

As a Tucsonan, I feel compelled to defend my state a little.

Yes, in many ways Arizona is rather backward. A lot of people still have a frontier mentality. But this is gradually changing as the state becomes more urbanized. Tucson will go for Obama, but that will not be enough to offset Phoenix and the rural areas. But the Obama campaign is working hard to get our message out.

As a state, we are also rather schizophrenic in our approach to political questions. We are the home of two presidential aspirants, both very conservative, though not peas in a pod. I'm not at all sure that Barry Goldwater would vote for McCain if he were still alive. He certainly would be appalled at the present Republican party.

Janet Napolitano has been a popular governor. I've heard rumblings that she might go after McCain's seat 2 years from now, when her second and final term as governor expires, governors being limited to 2 terms. And she has a good shot at winning if she does. Previous Democratic opponents to McCain have had the problem of poor name recognition and insufficient funds to get themselves known.

Also, in 06, 8 states, IIRC, had propositions or initiatives to amend their constitutions to permanently ban gay marriages. Arizona was the only state to vote that down.

We currently have 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives. That is now even, 4 Dems and 4 Repubs. For many years we had only one Democrat in that number, and since 02, 2 Dems. Although registered Republicans still outnumber registered Democrats, at least as of March, the numbers of Republicans continue to fall, and numbers of Democrats continue rising. Republicans still control both houses in our Legislature, but there using to be a HUGE imbalance in favor of the Repubs, whereas it's now 13 Dems to 17 Repubs in the Senate, and 25 Dems to 35 Repubs in the House.

So the trends appear to positive for us Dems. That doesn't mean that we don't have a LOT of work to do.

William Ayers did some bad things, a long time ago, when Obamaas 8 years old. How relevant could those things be to the man he is today, just by virtue of his association years ago?

If the answer is "very relevant indeed", I invite those who think so to ponder the fact that John McCain is still sleeping with a drug addict and fraud. How does that affect HIS worldview?

Clearly Obama has spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. It doesn't matter which choice McCain makes.

It's mainly Palin who keeps bringing up the Ayers stuff. All Obama has to do is use the nuclear option--mention the AIP--and it will shut Palin's fucking trap for good.