Devil505 wrote:1. In your opinion, is this an intelligent way to gain the independent votes that McCain desperately needs, or is it more likely to anger/disgust them?
Like a distressingly large amount of the McCain campaign messaging and McCain's own debate performance, it is poorly executed. Their points are unpointed, their rhetoric as mediocre and Obama's is vacuous. The method (robocall) is okay so long as it isn't overdone. The underlying points and intended message is righteous and can resonate with many people when it is presented properly, but the script of this call leaves much to be desired. What they're doing is intelligent, how they're doing it missing the mark though.
2. Is it an HONEST warning to American voters to say Obama "Worked Closely" with a domestic terrorist & not tell be that they worked closely on a charity, not bombings, or is it an attempt to deceive?
While it is decidedly an opinion and subjective to say he "worked closely" with Ayers, it is a fair assessment of the facts (and thus honest) and within reason to state it in this call, particularly as some additional context was presented following the use of that phrase. As I said above, I would have written the script differently to try and put a finer point on what is specifically objectionable about this relationship and why it matters. But this is more a matter of my distaste for the style and lack of pointedness in this script, not a matter of trying to make it "more honest" than this was.