Barack Obama, who is done running ads that mock war veterans for their service-related disabilities, is now slamming McCain as a dishonourable sleaze.

Let’s examine those official-looking citations.

Joe Klein of Time Magazine slams McCain, calling one McCain ad “one of the sleaziest ads I’ve ever seen.”  He, in his indignation, won’t even link to it.  He links, however, to a fact-checker.  Our intrepid fact-checker says that McCain was wrong to imply that this was “comprehensive” sex ed; in fact, Obama wants “age appropriate” sex ed.

E.J. Dionne of the WaPo called McCain’s ad “truly vile.”  Again, it was for the same issue: whether McCain was right to categorise the bill in question as “comprehensive” sex ed for kindergarteners.

Frank James, of the ChiTrib’s “Swamp” section, says that McCain’s ad targeting Obama’s sex ed bill is “old-fashioned, unreconstructed politics whose goal, first and foremost, is to get the candidate elected, the truth be damned.”

Problem: Obama does want comprehensive, “age-appropriate” sex ed for all grade levels, including kindergarten.  (Malkin has more.) Rather than explain the issue, Obama chose to attack, and, being a wuss, did so through others.  Score one for McCain.

Christopher Orr of the New Republic asks if we can expect more “dishonest smears” from conservatives.  This time, it was about former Gov. Jane Swift’s condemnation of Obama for his “lipstick on a pig” comment.

Problem: now, it’s an issue when your people criticise their people for passive-aggressive sexism?   It was “dishonest” to say that… Barack Obama implied that Palin is a pig when it really seemed like he… implied that Palin is a pig?  Note to Obama: if you put your foot in your mouth, please laugh it off or say you’re so sorry, did not mean it, kiss and make up, but do not attack your opponents for calling you out on your crap.

Score two for McCain.

CBS News said that “McCain and Palin have repeated the same claim, over and over again, in a variety of settings, after it was exposed as a lie.”  The “same claim” was that Palin refused funding for the Bridge To Nowhere.

Problem: At least according to Democrats in Alaska, Palin did kill the funding for it.  CNN agrees.

Score three for McCain.

Obama’s ad claims that the WaPo said that McCain ran a “disgraceful, dishonorable campaign” on 28 August 2008.  No such citation can be found.  E.J. Dionne, who was mentioned above, wrote those words on the 11th of September.  Dionne, who gave up on substance, resorted to groundless and general criticism of the McCain campaign.

Problem: when you are repeating baseless criticisms in an attempt to make your opponent look like a smear machine, you are only proving that your Ivy League education didn’t teach you to spell “hypocrite.”

The last comment about “deception” was from a Washington Post editorial on 31 August, which complained about McCain’s portrayal of Obama’s tax proposal.

Problem: While in the Senate, Obama voted for a bill that would have raised taxes on Americans earning $32,000 or more per year.  He would also expose an additional 20 million Americans to AMT.  This is also the man who wants to raise the capital gains tax for fairness, even if it decreases revenue. Is the Obama campaign seriously alleging that only 5% of Americans pay capital gains tax?

Even taking Obama’s new statements at face value, small businesses would pay more in taxes. The marginal tax rate for the highest earners would be greater than in Denmark and Sweden.  Relevant to this issue, Obama would raise marginal tax rates.  While total taxes are important, McCain is right to point out the increase in the marginal rate.  That effects not only people’s desire to earn more money (or have two working spouses) but to invest in one’s education.

Furthermore, Obama’s tax plan is wholly divorced from his “trillion dollar spending plan.”  McCain, in referring to Obama’s tax plan, would be totally justified in describing not the rainbows-and-unicorns fantasy land in which one can make money appear like fish at a feast, but the reality of paying for all of this do-good-ing that Obama proposes.

Score four for McCain.

Problem: Barack Obama did not address the issues in his latest ad.  Rather than clarifying his votes for sex ed for kindergarteners - “comprehensive” or “age appropriate” notwithstanding - or clarifying his contradictory tax proposals, he attacks. When pressed on the issues, Obama should respond with the issues, not with smears and lies.  As Michelle Malkin points out, Obama doesn’t tolerate dissent.  

After all, to do otherwise would involve delving into the issues.  E.J. Dionne, new muse of the Obama campaign, said it best: “In short, few Americans know what (or whom) Obama is fighting for, because he isn’t really telling them.” Obama can’t fight for anything more substantial than “hope” and “change,” which looks rather ethereal under scrutiny.  That hardly means that McCain is smear-happy; it just means that there is one set of standards for Obama’s opponents, who are supposed to treat the Messiah with kid gloves, and another set of standards that permits Obama to attack all day long.  As Neil said, it’s not the colour of his skin, but the thinness of it, that makes him unfit to be President.