Primary Place Online

Yes... I am Republican leaning, but the next President will be a Democrat, so I've been checking out the Democratic Candidates.  I've seen Edwards & Clinton... Obama is next.

The current "negative war" has harmed my view of Obama more than Hillary.  While Hillary has also promised change, she has not promised a change in the way her political campaign will operate.  She is an establishment candidate, and makes no bones about it.  I expected her to go negative... It's a fact of political life. 

However, Obama has touted himself as the candidate for change.  Everyone is enthused by his "new brand" of politics.  Am I missing something?  He's running his political campaign like any other political campaign.  It's great that he's causing everybody to feel hopeful again, but he isn't any more principled than the other Democrats that are running.  Politics is a dog-eat dog world... they'll eat you up and spit you out.  It's a fact of life.  Obama should quite acting like he's the choir boy and own up that, yes, he too plays politics.

And it's not just the cracy, out-of-control, newsmaking media of today.  Negativeness has been around since the founding of the Republic.  Want to see some mudslingers?  Check out Adams v. Jefferson.  Or even worse, check out Quincy Adams v. Jackson.  Some say Jackson's wife died due to the stress of the campaign (she was personally targetted).  In fact, I'd say the campaigns of the early years of our Republic were far more PERSONAL and damning then those now.  Does the media blow it up, yes!  But we'd be kidding ourselves if we pretend that politics was not negative in the "good old days." 

This is a good example of the Media creating the issue.  The debates weren't spicey enough so the media outlets started airing interviews with party "strategists" proded into responding to things like, "In order to get ahead Barak's gotta go negative on Hillary, doesn't he?"  So, sure enough, next debate we get negative and then we get the whole media reaction trying to measure whether "negative" is working or not, for whom, when, why...

In a vacuum (without media), negative campaigning would be an overwhelming negative for those who employ it.  Even now, it often blows up, as it should.  Shaheen's cocaine backfire is the latest. 

Caring, thinking, good, positive people are moved by positive positions on real issues, by positive candidates.  Negative campaigning is a mirror -- it reflects mostly on the campaignor.

For the media, though, it's all about the electricity.  And you get no flash without the positive and the negative.

Let's face it, politics is not for the weak of heart.  The candidates should be drawing distinctions between each other.  I even think that Bill Shaneen's comment about Obama's cocaine use is fair game.  Should we wait until he's our nominee to see whether this is going to hurt him?  And, no, the people I talk to are not discussing the friction.

I think it is about time Hillary strikes back. Edwards and Obama have been attacking her and she has the right to respond. She has taken their criticisms with strides. I saw a comment posted that said "I vow never to vote for a mudslinger." Then can I just ask who are you going to vote for? Any competent candidate is going to have to provide negative information about their opponents, its part of politics. Don’t you want to know about the negatives? I could agree that it isn't always something you are going to want to see or watch and you can become sick of it but it is a necessary strategy of campaigning. I think in this situation it is important to note that the majority of the attacks were started by other candidates and that Hillary is responding to them. I could understand being adverse to a candidate that lashes out every chance they can get and with absurd attacks but defending your position against attacks and dishing it back to those who are targeting you shows a strong candidate that isn't willing to be pushed around. Hillary still has my vote.

It is hard for candidates to distinguish themselves without pointing out what other candidates are or are not doing.  Merely being distinctive begets comparisons when a voter is asked to make a choice and stand by that choice.  It's all a matter of who controls the comparisons: the candidates, the press or the voter.

After a quick view of these two candidates web sites to get the facts, I found both give ample space to their own positions and platforms, but Clinton's "The Fact Hub" a link on her homepage, goes that extra step to portray other's positions or comments with a negative tone.  I did not find such a link on Obama's homepage, but an internet search did turn up Obama's "HillaryAttacks" mini web site which does the same thing as "The Fact Hub".  I found both sites distracting and I felt like I was being barked at by angry dogs. 

The press is certainly entertaining us with their spins on these various positions and comments.  The last two CNN debates are fine examples of a media outlet manipulating what we hear from the candidates. Both the Democrats and Republicans were fed questions leading them to argue with each other and/or be defensive.  I didn't get turned off by the candidates responses, I got turned off by CNN and stopped watching.

So the voters will ultimately decide using whatever sources they find most trustworthy.  Maybe that's each other. 

As Barack Obama pulls ahead of her in Iowa, Hillary Clinton is showing her negative, abrasive, divisive side. She harps on Obama's inexperience, citing her eight years as first lady as invaluable experience for the presidency.  That's when she took on health care.  I wouldn't count that as a feather in my cap if I were Hillary.  With  the immense challenges the next president faces, I'd rather see someone with good, sound judgment, something Obama possesses.  He has shown more good judgment in two years in the senate than she has in six. To quote a recent Wall Street Journal blog, "with good judgment, little else matters.  Without it, nothing matters."  Also, Americans seem to forget that when the president takes the oath of office he or she swears to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."  Hmmmmmm ... I know of one candidate who taught constitutional law for ten years, that might count for something.  If Bush had kept that oath of office in mind we wouldn't be in half the trouble we are in now.  Obama intends to take us forward.  While he understands the challenges ahead, he is hopeful that he has the judgment to lead us.  As Hillary attacks him, he is not going to her level but staying positive and on message. More good judgment.

From my perspective, which includes freuent communications from inside the Hillary campaign, the "friction" we read about is as much a product of press/media creativity (or boredom, because they've been following theme campaigns for so long already), as it is of fact. The reality from inside the campaigns is NOT to denigrate the opponents, but to highlight one's own skills, experience, and policy plans. I believe the same is true for the Obama folks. Clearly the media wants attention, and tension and friction and competition breed excitement, no matter how far from reality. I'm bothered by the irresponsible media in the whole campaign, particularly as it aims at Hillary Clinton! (Misogyny runs rampant, for example.)

The drama that goes on between these candidates is a big turn off.  I vow to never vote for a mudslinger.