Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:23:05 PM
Twice now I have had Obamaniacs post comments* on my blog saying, among other things, that Obama is not "engaging in negative campaigning". And thinking back, I see this often a refrain from Democrats in particular, that they are "taking the high road" and "not fighting dirty".
After I thought about it for a while, I developed a theory that the only people prone to say such things are those who have a lot they wish to conceal. In Obama's case, it is nothing criminal or immoral, it is just the fact that he does not want the independents, upon whose votes his presidential hopes rest, to know just how liberal and inexperienced he is. So, of course he complains when Hillary criticizes him, and says he wants to keep "negative campaigning" out of the primaries, because he knows that nothing he can say about his opponent will hurt her as much as she can hurt him.**
Actually, that seems to be the general rule, from Obama to Kerry and on and on. Every time I have heard someone say they wanted to keep the campaign "clean" and avoid "negative campaigning" it was a sure sign that they had no hope of finding as many negatives about their rival as their rival could find about them.
So, please, no more posts about "negative ads". Avoiding negative ads is not a moral stance, it is a tactic from a politician with too much baggage to hide.
-----------------------------------------------
* I am a bit sad that I only attracted two Obamaniacs. The lack of vitriol directed at me makes me think I am not doing my job.
**
As I noted below, Obama's opposition to "negative campaigning" does not stop his followers from tossing out
racial slurs, either. (And, yes, I DID cite the Puffington Host. It happened to be the first source I found after I lost my original link. Also, if I am trying to convince liberals that Obama isn't quite the noble champion they imagine, maybe citing a liberal source will help my case.)