Listening to McCain talk about Ayers makes the logical part of my brain do somersaults trying to figure out what the heck his argument really is. Just listen to what he told Chris Wallace this morning:
Senator McCain is creating a question where no question exists. He continually says "We need to know the full extent of that relationship." He is not seeking to inform; he is seeking to confuse. Let me put it this way. Senator McCain: you either know, or you don't know.
If you indeed do know the full extent of the relationship, then why haven't you said what it is? Instead of simply asking the question, if the news is as incendiary as you think it is, answer it. If you do know the relationship, and are choosing not to reveal what you know, then there are only two logical conclusions to be made. One is that the facts actually hurt your case. You would be willfully accusing a man of a crime that you know he didn't commit. In this case, you are guilty of both slander and libel. The other conclusion is that the facts DO support the case you are trying to make, and you are withholding them. Given that there is no actual legal investigation, this isn't technically obstructing justice, but it is an offense in the same flavor.
If you don't know, that's even worse. You are assuming guilt and making Obama prove his innocence, which is back-assward in our society. You are also making serious accusations without knowing the facts behind them; I don't know if there's a law about that, but there damn well ought to be.
Also, if you don't know, that does not give me confidence in your intellectual curiosity or attention to detail, Senator. Or even your hearing. Obama's direct answer to your question at the debate went completely unchallenged by you. You didn't disagree with any points he made when explaining the relationship, you simply repeated "We need to know the full extent of that relationship."
So why don't you tell us Mr. McCain? It's the 11th hour. Time to put up or shut up.