There are many tools that can be used to "compete" against others. It is one thing when there is a frank discussion on issues but it is another when less than honorable approaches are used.

The current elections provide an ongoing opportunity to watch how devious people can "attack" others under the guise of "reasonable speculation".

In this commentary, I'll look at how a person can pretend to have "reasonable speculation" that, since it is based on nothing, is simply another way to attack someone.

Method

The basic approach is:

1. have someone you want to diminish/attack/cause problems
2. identify something that many people, who might be friends/supporters wouldn't like
3. speculate on how the victim *might* do/benefit/... from that "something"

Even if the "something" is totally bogus, known to be bogus, etc, it will still prick at the minds of the recipients as a question. The source and, likely, even "what" the question is will likely be forgotten, leaving the "little red flag" that there is something amiss.

Example:

On CNN;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/04/justice.clinton/index.html

Bill Mears speculates upon whether a President Hillary Clinton would appoint her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to the supreme Court.

If you read the article, you find there is ZERO data behind this inflammatory speculation, it is completely "raw" imagination at work. He also seems concludes, deep into the article, that it is likely to be nearly impossible.

So, why the long piece?
So, why delay the answer ("no") until after the point most people stop reading?

One might conclude that the goal of Mr. Mears is a nefarious, smear of Ms. Clinton.