All sorts of chatter today over how the dreaded negative campaigning worked wonders for Mrs. Clinton.
Of course every election cycle we hear from the media how people are so turned off by it.
My question is, why is it OK now? Because it's only between Democrats?
If a Republican dutifully exposes the record of a Democrat, why is that considered negative?
The dirty little secret is negative campaigning works. You can pretend to be magnanimous and "stay above the fray," but then you wind up as political roadkill.
The only real campaigning is negative campaigning. How else do you draw a distinction between yourself and your opponent?
The leftwing blogs understand this, as do the right.
The truth is the media for the most part skews to the left. Any time their candidates are exposed, they whine that the slightest criticism is negative, mostly as a means of trying to scare the Republican out of attack mode.
People see through this more and more, and now that Mrs. Clinton has successfully staved off elimination by attacking Obama from every angle, it'll be a difficult sell in the general election for the media to cry about John McCain going negative.
I expect Senator McCain to try and be a nice guy, but you can bet your last dollar he'll be mercilessly and scurrilously attacked from every direction. He and his people better be prepared to go negative from the get-go.
No comments:
Post a Comment