In every presidential campaign, candidates of both parties will say something over the line. Sen. John McCain has already hit a low mark.
The senior senator from Arizona said his Democratic rival would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." What's next, an open charge of treason?
McCain and his GOP allies have insisted that Sen. Barack Obama should practically genuflect in front of them and admit he was wrong on the surge in Iraq. Obama declined to bear witness to the surge's success despite the heavy attacks.
For myself, I will acknowledge the surge has helped calm Iraq, thanks to pouring 130,000 more U.S. troops into the Iraqi cities and countryside. But this does not mean the six-year war has been won. Far from it.
In fact, the Iraqi leaders and even President Bush have agreed on a goal of a heavy U.S. drawdown, even though the White House prefers to call it a "general time horizon" rather than a timetable. Talk about a fuzzy description.
McCain still hasn't told us what his oft-called-for victory would look like. Even his friend Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says McCain is treading on thin ground with his personal attack on Obama's motives.
Although the economy is the top issue for voters, McCain continues to emphasize the war. When reminded in an interview about the mounting problems in Afghanistan, McCain said that "there was a lot more work to be done" in that country and returned the focus to Iraq.
Remember Afghanistan? That's the war the Bush administration left far too early to invade Iraq. You haven't heard McCain or many Republicans admit that that was a tremendous error.