Each time a candidate succesfully fends off an attack, it builds confidence in them ...

[andym]

Each time a candidate successfully fends off an attack, it builds confidence in that candidate in the eyes of the electorate.

Of course, cheap and distracting attacks can be very successful -- witness the swiftboat attacks on Kerry, if the attackers are willing to lie and distort and have some apparent credibility (which may be lacking in truth). A candidate may ignore these kind of attacks at their peril. But weak attacks based on classic smear tactics (not directly related to something the candidate actually did or has stated he or she believes) actually can vaccinate the candidate against more attacks. It is thought that Rove did this with Bush and his probable drug use as a young man-- actually launching exaggerated attacks through third parties against Bush in order to protect him. The Dan Rather episode may have been more of the same with a possible "poisoned" letter being circulated that actually reflected the complete truth about what happened (of course the status of the letter is still debatable).

So, spinning the wrong stories to attack the opponent may actually backfire. The way to determine this is to read the appropriate polls about 2-3 days after an attack cycle.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

1. You're right. Hillary has made me like Obama more and more. ..n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. Same here, but the damage Hillary is causing Obama for the GE is infuriating.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

3. Hillary''s making Obama a household name.

He comes across very sane in comparison to her insanity.

[andym]

4. Each weak attack is an opportunity for the smart candidate to prove themselves

Each weak, indirect attack is an opportunity for the smart candidate to prove him- or herself.
And that actually helps to innoculate him/her!