Put on your big girl and boy pants everyone!
People are just a bit too squeamish about "negative" campaigning and "attack" ads for my taste Seriously, I think everyone needs to get a grip.
I forget now if it was on Twitter, or on BlogHer, or on someone's own blog, but I recently saw a discussion where someone was incensed over what she perceived to be Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning.
And we all know there are lots of discussions going on about how Hillary should drop out because it will just perpetuate all of this fighting between the Democrats instead of focusing on the real issue of beating John McCain.
I myself have been extremely annoyed by the rather arrogant and, I think, subtly sexist tone Obama is taking every chance he gets.
But when I think more about it I really have to say: we all need to check our overreactions at the door and ask ourselves: Exactly what horrible, terrible, vicious attacking are we talking about?
That "phone call at 3AM" Hillary ad that has some people so steamed? Harmless. Doesn't say a word about her opponent. Harps on her experience as she's been doing for months and months.
Obama's comments about Hillary getting "desperate" and lashing out when she's "feeling down". Ok, I agree with Jon Stewart, seems like he'd be a dickish boyfriend, but this is an old political put-down...think Ronald Reagan and "There You Go Again."
Both of them having their staffs get worked up in a lather over comments from various opposing campaign workers and supporters? Getting campaign workers and supporters to step down, resign, back off, apologize?
I don't know. They're both doing it. And none of it, frankly, seems incredibly awful.
It's OK for Hillary to question Obama's experience, and for her to imply that he's all hat, no cattle. All inspiration, no perspiration. Even if you think it sounds a bit patronizing. Yes, I do think she'd be taking the same tack with anyone else who was 15 years her junior and had a similar resume.
It's OK for Obama to question Hillary's electability, "establishment" position and reputation as a polarizing figure. Even if you think he's basically spouting Republican talking points. He'd be talking about change no matter who he was running against.
I actually do not buy the media talking point that this race has been or is getting ever-more nasty. It actually hasn't...at least as far as I've paid attention. And for all you political junkies out there who are obsessed with every single detail of this race: I may pay less attention than you do, but I pay closer attention than about 99% of the electorate. So I'm betting that if I haven't noticed any actual egregious nastiness, then most other voters haven't either.
We don't need to perpetuate this Republican and Mainstream Media talking point that having Obama and Hillary continue to run is bad for the Democrats. I don't buy it.
We do need to stop expecting this to be a tea party and let the candidates make their damn case.
So, let me have it. What are the examples of campaigning that you think are incredibly nasty? Educate me.
Cross-posted at my personal blog
I forget now if it was on Twitter, or on BlogHer, or on someone's own blog, but I recently saw a discussion where someone was incensed over what she perceived to be Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning.
And we all know there are lots of discussions going on about how Hillary should drop out because it will just perpetuate all of this fighting between the Democrats instead of focusing on the real issue of beating John McCain.
I myself have been extremely annoyed by the rather arrogant and, I think, subtly sexist tone Obama is taking every chance he gets.
But when I think more about it I really have to say: we all need to check our overreactions at the door and ask ourselves: Exactly what horrible, terrible, vicious attacking are we talking about?
That "phone call at 3AM" Hillary ad that has some people so steamed? Harmless. Doesn't say a word about her opponent. Harps on her experience as she's been doing for months and months.
Obama's comments about Hillary getting "desperate" and lashing out when she's "feeling down". Ok, I agree with Jon Stewart, seems like he'd be a dickish boyfriend, but this is an old political put-down...think Ronald Reagan and "There You Go Again."
Both of them having their staffs get worked up in a lather over comments from various opposing campaign workers and supporters? Getting campaign workers and supporters to step down, resign, back off, apologize?
I don't know. They're both doing it. And none of it, frankly, seems incredibly awful.
It's OK for Hillary to question Obama's experience, and for her to imply that he's all hat, no cattle. All inspiration, no perspiration. Even if you think it sounds a bit patronizing. Yes, I do think she'd be taking the same tack with anyone else who was 15 years her junior and had a similar resume.
It's OK for Obama to question Hillary's electability, "establishment" position and reputation as a polarizing figure. Even if you think he's basically spouting Republican talking points. He'd be talking about change no matter who he was running against.
I actually do not buy the media talking point that this race has been or is getting ever-more nasty. It actually hasn't...at least as far as I've paid attention. And for all you political junkies out there who are obsessed with every single detail of this race: I may pay less attention than you do, but I pay closer attention than about 99% of the electorate. So I'm betting that if I haven't noticed any actual egregious nastiness, then most other voters haven't either.
We don't need to perpetuate this Republican and Mainstream Media talking point that having Obama and Hillary continue to run is bad for the Democrats. I don't buy it.
We do need to stop expecting this to be a tea party and let the candidates make their damn case.
So, let me have it. What are the examples of campaigning that you think are incredibly nasty? Educate me.
Cross-posted at my personal blog
Labels: Attack ads, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, negative campaigning
posted by ElisaC 11:15 AM
3 Comments:
Excellent post. Elections are about enumerating your differences with your opponent. Some call that negative, but it is legitimate to explain to the voters why you are better, and by extension why the other candidate is worse. This campaign has in fact been less negative than almost any other recent ones. And it's a walk in the park compared to what we're soon to see in the general election.
The longer the campaign continues, the better it is for the Democrats because Obama and Clinton will be prominent in the news and McCain will be an afterthought. Remember 2004? After Kerry wrapped up the nomination, he dropped out of sight for months.
So bring it on. The campaign will only strengthen the eventual winner. It's the supporters who need to develop a thicker skin and recognize that one candidate has to lose, and it just might be yours.
I could not agree more. This as been a very civil campaign, and if anyone things McCain and the Reps are going to be nicey-nice are delusing themselves.
"It's the supporters who need to develop a thicker skin and recognize that one candidate has to lose, and it just might be yours."
Great point!
Democrats should avoid shooting themselves in the foot (again) by giving the Reps. this kind of ammunition. The campaigning isn't what is arming the Repubs. it's the behavior of some prominent Dems. (including bloggers) who can't hack this campaign and say ridiculous things like it makes them wonder if they can vote for the other candidate in the fall.
Post a Comment
<< Home