Let’s see. ‘My opponent is eloquent.’ Hmm. ‘My opponent is calling for change.’ Yes, but so far what is an attack in this? ‘My opponent’s call for change is empty.’ Aha! But, but John, aren’t you the campaign finance reform guy who is making news for his dubious campaign financing, and aren’t you the ‘straight talker’ guy who is now telling obvious lies about his shady dealings with lobbyists? Doesn’t what you are saying amount to ‘My opponent is questionable; not as much as I am, sure, but, still, you can’t trust him.’ What’s more, you are making this charge just as Obama is adding more substance to calls for change (probably mainly to cease irritating what was probably a lot of people); so is his call for change really empty? Isn’t it you whose words are empty, and worthless?
I’m going to enjoy this campaign.