This goes back to our earlier colloquy. How better to judge a person than by their record and with whom they have chosen to associate? Is it better to choose a leader because he is charismatic and makes voters feel good about themselves? This whole subject would be far less relevant if Obama had an actual record in public life. He doesn't. What little record he has, we are excoriated for racism, guilt by association or McCarthyism if we attempt to examine it. We know more about Todd Palin's driving record than Obama's career in Chicago.
Thats the rub. Its pointless because we simply dont know the extent of these "relationships". I dont know a whole lot about the Rezko thing, but if its anything like the Ayers situation I have to laugh. I've read all about that and i simply cant believe how its been so twisted up...to now say "obama pals around with terrorists". I'm sorry but thats ridiculous. Not that dems dont do it to though. I dont know a whole lot about mccains first wife, or the keating scandal either. Pabst said they were obama and rezko were "best friends". haha oh really? You say he has no record and we don't know much about him, yet pabst knows enough to be able to accurately identify which friend of his he likes the "best". You see how stupid that is? Anything we hear from the campaign regarding the other candidates relationships has been so twisted and mangled that its far from true.
Negative campaigning works because the media tends to cover negative ads more frequently as opposed to positive ones. The McCain campaign's negative ads stick like Velcro while Obama's 'hope and change' ads are forgettable and get no media coverage.