The Obama campaign staff should probably figure that one out. You don’t talk about how your opponent strapped a dog to the roof of a car when you write about eating dogs. You don’t talk about how your opponent was a bully half a century ago when you bullied girls.
I have to say, this group seemed a bit more competent in 2008.
36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max! 
It’s a bit different when you eat dog because it’s what’s served to you when you’re seven years old, from when you strap your dog to the top of the car when you’re 35. Your expectation that Obama’s moral development at seven be the same as Romney’s at 35 is impressive — it shows who you regard as the more morally developed guy.
Unless, of course, you’re trying to say Romney’s being stuck at a pre-pubescent moral development is a good idea.
Which is it?
Ignoring your attempt at an intellectual stolen base, this isn’t about arguing the relative merits of either situation (or with either bullying situation, for that matter). My point is that these attempts at attacking Romney are doomed to failure because there is an “equivalent” counter-charge from the point of view of the undecided, low-information voters the ads are targeting. And more importantly, the Obama campaign members trying to dig up dirt on Romney probably should read their boss’s autobiographies in order not to fall into this trap.
Though honestly, I don’t mind them continuing to do so…
There’s a countercharge if you bend the facts. There’s a countercharge if you think you can pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, and no one will complain too much when you get caught.
But the claims backing these “countercharges” are specious. A young boy of 7 being fed dog is not a reflection on his moral character, neither in law nor in reality. I’m grateful that Romney’s dog was tied down, and not just roaming the back of a pick up doing 75 on the freeway as are so many dogs in the beds of pickups I see with Romney bumperstickers on them — but it’s a testament to the ability of Romney to let cheapskate tendencies overcome his better senses (he could clearly have afforded a dog sitter, or a bigger vehicle to accommodate the dog — don’t get me going on whether the kids were buckled up). It’s a funny story, really — if Romney had sense, he’d laugh about it, and claim to have grown morally from what he learned (dogs on tops of cars is not a good idea).
Obama tells another story from elementary school, talking about how he acted badly and regrets it (Why did the conservatives cut that story before the end? What were they hiding?). Romney, a decade older, claims not to remember his humiliating another older teen with a vicious assault.
You think that’s equivalent?
Obama didn’t have to dig to find those two incidents. They were brought out by others, in other venues. You should stop trying to blame Obama for stuff he didn’t do, and do a real moral analysis of Romney and his values.