I detect a new Democratic strategy in responding to the right wing character attacks. In the last election cycle, Kerry responded to swift boat attacks by trying to show in meticulous detail that they just were not true. This, of course, just reinforced the false accusation and gave it more weight.
Now, I detect a new strategy. Rather, than respond in excruciating detail to how crossing paths with Ayers does not mean Obama is a criminal, I think I am detecting a smarter response. Now I would characterize the response as "tit-for-tat." The Dems are just attacking back as their response. For example, the Obama campaign released a video detailing McCain's links to the Keating-Five in response to the latest character assassination. Similarly, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs parried Sean Hannity's Ayers attack with an accusation that Hannity was anti-semitic because he devoted a show to the attacks of an anti-semite.See Robert Gibbs Confronts Hannity Over Anti-Semite Gues
My view is that this new form of response is much more effective for at least three reasons.
First, it puts the attacker back on his or her heels, forcing the attacker to spend time defending him or her self. This massively reduces the time spent repeating the lie that is the attack.
Second, it also undercuts the attack at a visceral level. The unstated premise of this type of character assassination is that Obama crossed paths with a bad person therefore Obama is a bad person. Folks seeing this new response where the Dems attack back in kind often will conclude that the entire premise (you crossed paths with a bad person therefore you are a bad person) is nonsense because the attacker is forced to make this point in defending him or her self. Just watch the Gibbs-Hannity video if you need to see how well this works.
Third, this new form of response stops the attacks from turning Obama into the Republican's "bitch." Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo once wrote that perhaps the real purpose to these Republican right wing attacks was to demonstrate that the candidate is the Republican's "bitch" by slapping the candidate around. The truth of the attacks is less important than the act of slapping around the candidate and making the candidate "your bitch." This diminishes the candidate as a leader. Just standing there and saying "no it is not so" has the fatal quality of making our candidate appear weaker and less of a leader. Responding in kind stops this nonsense too.