Personal attacks seem to be an integral part of the democratic process, when a political leader is elected. Dirt is dug up and thrown in all possible directions.

On the one hand, these personal attacks can be helpful for the electors in order to getting to know the intimate details about the candidates and their characters, their past and moral standards as double standards are revealed and every skeleton in the closet is let out.

But on the other hand, it can be very difficult to sort out the information, that might be true from the merely vicious and planted stories, and that makes it very difficult to reach an informed decision in an election campaigns lacking in seriousness.

When everything is confused by personal attacks, the attention is drawn away from what should be at the core; the political point of views, visions and goals.

And what is even worse; when the strategy  of a political party or wing is to disavow a competitor as it is the case with a number of the videos that are used in the presidential campaign by the McCain office, the party can easily seem dishonest and like an empty barrel making noise. If a party or a presidential candidate has a strong political agenda and some strong visions for the country, this will overshadow the need to disavow the competitor.

But would a presidential campaign be the same without the the personal attacks?