It's a pretty slick, well-conceived ad. Negative? Sure. But as much as I wish all the campaigning could be positive, it looks like we'll have to get used to it. I've seen worse negative advertising though. Joe the Plumber and some of the Reverend Wright clips in 2008 were worse.

If the facts in the ad are correct--and I don't hear any clamor from the Romney campaign that they're not--what do we have here? It seems to me that we have an incumbent who campaigned on "change" and simply hasn't delivered. And his opponent who is making similar promises, but has a record that belies what he says he intends to do.

Boy, what a choice. I can't see much space between them. One major difference is that one is an incumbent and one isn't. For me that's beginning to look like the only meaningful tie-breaker.