Rebello:  One could argue that Obama's entire campaign theme is based on a negative ("I'm the only one who will 'change' America; the 'others' are warmongering status quo); the machinations of this campaign strategy (character assasination of H Clinton) are evident all over the place--columnists, bloggers, this board.

The real question re: negativity is, is the negativity directed at the issues or at the opponent?  Arguing that you're the only one that opposed the war is an issue-based argument.  Arguing that the others are war-mongers is more of a pointed attack. 

It's important to remember this.  Arguing that Clinton lied about her junket to Bosnia is more of an "attack" on her character than it is on any issues.  Arguing that her "lie" was an attempt to exaggerate her long resume as an arbiter of foreign policy in war-torn regions of the world is more issues-based, or precisely, a focus on her qualifications.

It's a fine line between criticizing your opponent for their stand on issues or criticizing their performance record and attacking the other person's character, calling them a liar and questioning their integrity.

Never mind.

Never mind.

Brother_Yossarian wrote:

Rebello: One could argue that Obama's entire campaign theme is based on a negative ("I'm the only one who will 'change' America; the 'others' are warmongering status quo); the machinations of this campaign strategy (character assasination of H Clinton) are evident all over the place--columnists, bloggers, this board.

The real question re: negativity is, is the negativity directed at the issues or at the opponent? Arguing that you're the only one that opposed the war is an issue-based argument. Arguing that the others are war-mongers is more of a pointed attack..

True enough, Brother_Yossarian, But of course, Kucinich, Dodd and Richardson were all against Bush's War on Iraq, and 2 of them even voted against the resolution that gave Bush the authority to start it!!

Brother_Yossarian wrote:

It's important to remember this. Arguing that Clinton lied about her junket to Bosnia is more of an "attack" on her character than it is on any issues. Arguing that her "lie" was an attempt to exaggerate her long resume as an arbiter of foreign policy in war-torn regions of the world is more issues-based, or precisely, a focus on her qualifications.

It's a fine line between criticizing your opponent for their stand on issues or criticizing their performance record and attacking the other person's character, calling them a liar and questioning their integrity.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with this. I am referring more to epithets and unproveable accusations (monster, just like Bush, craven, out to destroy the democratic party, out to rule the world, fat ankles, power hungry, etc) all of which are repeatedly used to define Clinton--the Divider, vs Obama, the Uniter.

Don't know if that makes sense or not. He's the only candidate that I am aware of who says things like "I'm the one you've been waiting for" morphed into "we're the ones we've been waiting for," thereby alienating any number of good, but possibly too stressed to be inspired, Americans who just happened to support one of the others.

[QUOTE=hortonthrockmorton;384463]A very good point.  I was actually thinking along these lines a couple of days ago when the HRC campaign did something that pissed me off (and again this morning listening to the news about HRC self-righteously declaring that she would not have attended that church -- they really have given up on the African-American vote, haven't they?)

If HRC were to pull out a shocker and convinces the superdelegates to nullify the majorities of the popular vote and pledged delegate vote, I would probably swallow my own vomit and vote for HRC because of the damage more Republican SC appointments would do, and because of the health care issue, which will go nowhere during another Republican administration.

But it would cause a pretty severe burn in my throat.[/QUOTE]


AT THIS POINT,  THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE IS IN OBAMA'S POCKET.