With the Swift Boating of John Kerry still fresh in their minds, Obama's team vowed not to let such skullduggery pass without comment. A rapid-response mechanism is triggered whenever some tawdry attack is initiated by the other side. It is a dizzying exercise that has also been adopted by the McCain camp in its own special way.

The problem with this back-and-forth turf building is that it can be hard to digest -- a kind of scattershot approach that is difficult to assess. Obama's lagging poll numbers are said to be a result of the personal attacks he is enduring at the hands of his opponent's slice-and-dice machine. Despite the growing gaffe portfolio McCain is amassing, one keeps hearing the same old refrain that Obama is inexperienced and that his "maverick" opponent has this outstanding record of service to his country and senatorial prowess.

What sometimes happens in these exchanges is that people come away with what they choose to absorb without developing a sense of proportion or a scale by which to judge what weight should be given to various accusations. When McCain makes his outrageous statement that Obama would willingly lose a war in order to satisfy his presidential ambitions, such an assertion may stick better than Obama's retaliatory outrage.

Still, the flurry of relentless attacks regarding Obama's patriotism lacks a rational basis. After all, Obama has been consistent in opposing the war in Iraq from the very beginning; he didn't suddenly come up with his position as a presidential campaign ploy. Since that is obviously the case, McCain devised a rapid response to his own comment. "Let me be clear", he says, ‘I wasn't questioning Obama's patriotism, I was questioning his judgment.' Nonsense piled on nonsense. Of course he was trying to create doubts about Obama's patriotism, his "otherness." Let's all be clear about that.

The truth gets lost somewhere in the waves of rhetoric that threaten to swamp the campaign with the worst kind of character assassination. My twenty-something son, who tends not to be much of a political animal, remarked today that he didn't understand why the candidates were going on about who owned what houses instead of discussing real issues. He makes a good point as do many others of similar mind. However, as I explained to him the house(s) debate has traction because McCain represents himself as an average Joe, who relates to common folk and perhaps even feels their pain.

McCain's heiress wife, the corporate jet, the luxury homes, the $500 shoes and his rather distorted notion of what constitutes income wealth notwithstanding, voters are meant to understand that he is a man of the people - - not like that argula-consuming intellectual who doesn't know how to bowl and probably, shudder, doesn't own a gun. Personally I hate arugula, but I don't hold Obama's taste for it against him.

Unfortunately, Obama will have to waste precious issue time stressing the absurdity of McCain's claims about his past associations. In the case of William Ayers, for example, Obama's worked with him on community projects in Chicago where Ayers is currently a professor at the University of Illinois. Obama didn't know Ayers in his days as an active member of the Weatherman underground since he was only eight years old at the time.

He will also have to help voters recall McCain's own dubious associations. While he wasn't charged in the corruption scandal that erupted in the savings and loan debacle involving his friend, Charles Keating, McCain had a long relationship with the man who entertained him at his vacation home in the Bahamas and provided him and his family with jet transport on numerous occasions. Whether there were quid pro quo ramifications to such favors is less clear, but who really knows? And why would McCain appear at a fundraiser promoted by Ralph Reed, an unsavory cohort of disgraced lobbyist Abramoff?

The McCain campaign rushed out a statement that Obama shouldn't be criticizing their candidate for his failure to "remember" how many houses he owns - - at last count it seemed to be four plus three investment properties. After all, they say there are questions about the way Obama acquired what they refer to as his mansion in Chicago.

And in what has become their fallback position for any criticism, the McCain campaign released the following with respect to housing matters: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years - - in prison." How long will McCain as POW be used as a catchall excuse for gaffes, inconsistencies, deceptions and, oh yes, poor judgment?