It's on: McCain camp hints they're ready to hit Obama on Wright

Via the Standard, I’m simply weak at the thought of the magnificent theatrical sorrow to which we’ll be treated when the blogosphere’s shrillest Obama mega-shills find out. If Joe Klein and Sullivan don’t already have pieces prepared for the occasion, consider their weekend schedules cleared.

Remember, The One himself calls this a “legitimate issue.”

Don’t be shocked if you see the McCain campaign pull the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright out of mothballs in new attacks against one-time parishioner, Barack Obama.

McCain advisers say that they see “attack by association” as fair game now, arguing that Obama’s campaign has been using that technique to go after McCain. In particular, the Obama campaign has hammered McCain on the stump and in TV ads on the number of one-time lobbyists working for his campaign. (The McCain campaign is also angry about a Spanish-language TV ad that ties McCain to Rush Limbaugh on immigration, without ever saying that McCain took on Limbaugh and others to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.)

“They played it one way, we played it another way,” said one of McCain’s top advisers, Mark Salter. “Now we’re both going to play it the same way.”

Salter said to expect more of the same, saying the campaign was tired of “catching the spears.” Asked whether to expect attacks involved Wright, campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb said: “We’ve seen all throughout the (Democratic) primary this guy has a lot of associations that are very problematic.”

By “catching the spears” I take it he means Team Barry’s proliferating negative ads, bad-faith accusations of racism, mass mobilization efforts to shout down or otherwise “get in the faces” of people who utter the slightest criticism, and thinly veiled ridicule of McCain’s VP as a moron to whom people are drawn because she’s “cute.” But maybe I’m wrong. Exit question: How does six weeks of guilt-by-association one-upsmanship sound? Wright, then Hagee, then Ayers, then Palin’s church, then …?