100 percent false

If you watched or listened to the debate Wednesday night, you'll remember Barry taking McCain to task, saying that 100% of his ads have been negative. McCain refuted this allegation, and BHO asserted that "It absolutely is true."

Sorry, Barack. It isn't. According to politifact.com, your $3,000 pants are on fire. The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that, to date, 73% of McCain's ads have been negative, compared to 61% of Obama's. If you count the nightly news' coverage of McCain as negative ads (how could you not?), I'd say we're about even.

Here's an ad McCain ran during the DNC, on the night when Barry accepted the party's nomination:

Unless "Job well done" is some sort of coded racial slur (and I'm sure many of his zealots would be able to construe it as such), that ad didn't sound negative to me. They say you're not supposed to use words like "always" and "never" during arguments, and I would guess that "100%" is synonymous with "always" in this case. Certainly Barack knew of at least this one ad, meaning that his 100% claim was false.

So, here's a question for the class. Why did Obama say that 100% of McCain's ads had been negative when he knew it wasn't true? Did he think he could just get away with it? Is this the sort of *change* we need in D.C.?