Deadlines, said Iraq war deadline supporters this week in a negative advertisement against Sen. Susan Collins, are worth fighting over. But with 586 days left before Election Day ’08, did a deadline of their own force them to denounce her views on Iraq as she attended a funeral in Portland for Sgt. Jason Swiger, killed in Baghdad as he handed candy to children?

The Maine People’s Alliance, backed by national Democratic donors, celebrated their ad Wednesday at the Bangor Public Library, explaining that Collins voted against the war-funding bill that would have imposed deadlines for troop redeployment. But the ad turns out to be a deceptive cut-and-paste pastiche: Film clips in it weren’t taken during the funding vote but when she was opposing President George Bush on his troop surge. A concluding picture of Collins and Bush at a signing ceremony was from three years ago – when Collins outmaneuvered some Republicans and got Congress to pass the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

You want accuracy and fairness? Apparently, it’s too close to the election for that.

Collins’ defenders responded to the ad immediately, followed swiftly by the Maine Democratic Party responding to that response, and then once more over the Net by Republicans – their leader in the state Senate, Carol Weston, said the spot was like the ’64 Lyndon Johnson “Daisy Girl” ad against Barry Goldwater. Actually, that may not work out well for her GOP – let’s just call the ad a bomb and move on.

For all the noise, Democrats have a hard time with their party’s strategy of funding the war but imposing deadlines because, with the anti-war movement, there is Left and Lefter. For example, Collins’ expected opponent for ’08, Rep. Tom Allen, irritated a Lefter faction with his funding-support vote, leading the faction to announce in a mass e-mail recently that “Tom Allen Wants You in Iraq!” It suggested Americans “join Tom’s two daughters today at the local recruitment office,” though what his daughters did to deserve to be brought into this argument isn’t clear.

Anyway, for different reasons, Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud voted as Collins did, against the funding and the deadlines. I suppose the failure of the negative ad to mention this uncomfortable split among Maine Democrats was an oversight.

Even more surprising in the debate over funding for the war is the faith that those opposed to it place in the president. They must believe that, were the funds to be cut, he would act responsibly and bring troops home before the till emptied.

I’m not sure what inspires their confidence, especially after the president goaded congressional Democrats this week, saying, “It’s one thing to object to the policy, but it’s another thing when you have troops in harm’s way not to give them the funds they need” – for body armor, the president probably was thinking. But his meaning was clear: If the money runs out, the president’s first action will be to blame Congress. Whether he gets around to moving the troops out of harm’s way remains to be seen. Recently, blaming Congress has become something of a full-time job at the White House.

You might argue that the president was bluffing with his comment, that no member of the Bush administration would act for political gain at the expense of the troops. The anti-funders must believe some version of this, and it’s nice that so much faith is being placed in a president with such low approval ratings. Call me a silly old cynic, but I don’t share their faith, even as I am sure Congress should face reality on Iraq and put its energy (and funding) into nonmilitary solutions there.

Collins and Allen, who have distinctly different positions on many topics, have agreed generally with the idea of emphasizing nonmilitary – political, economic, regional – solutions to the fighting in Iraq. It would be interesting to hear a debate in which the two explained what they would propose specifically and to what extent their plans would supplant a military strategy.

But as long as low-level advertising dominates what could be an excellent race between two experienced politicians, the Maine public will get little but charge and counter-charge. Not only is this dull for voters, but it’s way too easy for the politicians involved. Notice that Collins didn’t have to talk about the war in response to the MPA ad, but could focus merely on the ad itself.

So, the ’08 season begins with a mistimed, deceptive anti-war ad that places its trust in the president and lets members of Congress sidestep the real issue. With so much room for improvement, no wonder they’re starting early.

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News.