Based on his previous campaigns, it's clear that Obama is quite comfortable with personal attacks on his opponents.  From opening sealed divorce records to lies about extramarital affairs, Obama's winning mojo has been to tear the other guy down with false personal attacks while declaring that Obama himself has nothing to do with the accusations.

The latest attack by team Obama, claiming that Romney is responsible for providing free health insurance to everyone who's ever worked for any company he had any interest in, fits well into the mold of Obama's mudslinging.  Obama has no problem calling Romney a killer because the wife of one employee of one company that Romney invested in died of cancer; somehow I doubt that Democrats would apply this reasoning to Ted Kennedy.

What's amazing is that this strategy actually may be no-lose for Obama.  If Romney started declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, a lot of his base would think Romney was nuts.  If Romney declared that Obama had killed people to get drug money when Obama was young, Romney would lose the support of most conservatives.

On the other hand, the Obama base will believe any lie about Romney.  Harry Reid channels a Bain customer who somehow is intimately familiar with Romney's taxes in the years after Romney left Bain, and Obama supporters sing Hallelujah!  Similarly, Obama accuses Romney of being a felon, and Obama's supporters praise the lord and say that they're glad that Obama isn't letting himself be pushed around by those racists -- i.e., anyone who doesn't support Obama.

Why are Obama supporters so willing to accept behavior from their guy that they would strenuously object to from Romney?  The answers vary, but the fact that Obama treats the government as his own private piggy bank when passing out taxpayer dollars to his supporters might have something to do with it.  After all, those folks who partied with the money they should have used to buy health care are going to make out like bandits if Obama gets them insured after they get ill for no extra cost.  Similarly, union members know that if their company goes belly-up in the Obama economy, they, but not non-union workers, will get bailed out with taxpayer dollars.  And if you're living off welfare or food stamps, you might be willing not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Lying through his teeth, then, won't hurt Obama with his base.  But what about the independents/undecideds?  The members of that group who are informed by sources other than the mainstream media (MSM) already know what a disaster Obama has been.  If they're dumb enough to vote for Obama anyway, a little bit of lying by Obama won't affect their votes. 

On the other hand, Obama probably felt that those undecideds/independents who get their news only from the MSM would never hear about the story.  Obama probably felt comfortable that the media would carry water for him and not comment on a lie about Romney being responsible for a woman's death.  Especially since the exact same false charge was made by the same man back in May on a conference call set up by the Obama campaign, and the media was silent.  How could Obama have known that falsely accusing his opponent of murder was beyond the pale even for MSNBC?

Events seem to be indicating that perhaps Obama made a miscalculation on this issue, but even so, Obama could still walk away a winner.

It may be that this whole exercise was, at least in part, the Fast and Furious of campaign financing.  Obama hates PACs because they provide a way for non-union members to funnel millions into campaigns.  In the sunny world of McCain-Feingold, Democrats had a huge advantage because the massive efforts by unions for Democrats were legal, but there was no way for non-union members to unite to support Republicans.  Sadly, the First Amendment now stands between Obama and the promised land of campaign financing inequity.

Just as the Second Amendment stands in the way of Obama's desire to disarm the American people.

When Hitler attacked Poland to start WWII in Europe, he had a bunch of Nazis dress up in Polish uniforms and pretend to attack a German radio station near the border.  This is called a false flag operation; you stage an atrocity and blame it on your enemy.

Obama may be enamored of false flag operations.  In Fast and Furious, the Obama administration allowed Mexican cartel members to buy automatic weapons.  The objective was to make it appear, as Hillary Clinton had previously said, that the violence in Mexico was the result of liberal gun policies in America, thereby providing a rationale for restricting the rights of American gun owners.

In the latest case, a PAC supporting Obama has run a horrendously evil ad.  Obama had every reason to believe that his connection to the ad would be hidden by the media because the media has refused to report on what really happened in Fast and Furious.  If Obama wins the election, he can use the toxic ads produced by his own PACs -- which he doesn't coordinate with (at least according to him) -- as evidence as to why PACs need to be reined in, First Amendment be damned, just as the violence in Mexico shows that gun owners' rights have to be curtailed irrespective of what the Second Amendment says.

Obama believed that going toxic was a no-lose proposition because by tarring Romney, he distracts attention from the Obama economy while winning points with people who listen only to the MSM, and once the campaign is over, Obama could use the evil ads produced by the PACs including those which supported him as a basis to call for restricting free speech once again.

Only time will tell if Obama's calculations were correct, but the fact that he could believe that his base wouldn't be revolted by his tactics shows what sort of people he thinks support him.

If you'd like to read more of my rants, feel free to drop by my blog at obvioustalk.blogspot.com.