Truthful negative ads can be fine. Swiftboat type ads don't belong in this country.

"...the public was more aware of what the major party candidates stood for than in 2000."

More aware of the issues presented in the negative ads (accurate or inaccurate) or the actual issues and the actual positions of each candidate?

Why can't we figure a way to get the same kind of reaction and information from well-done positive ads presenting a candidate's own positions? Is it impossible? Or are we so incapable? Or is it that the audience would much prefer sniping and conflict than clear approaches to real issues?

I agree with tomeck.

There is also a much bigger issue with the 3 AM ad and that is the "scary effect" - like we need more fear-mongering! That's my complaint about that ad. It is an unhealthy assault on the collective psyche . I heard a Hillary-supporting radio caller say, "I didn't feel fearful about that ad, I felt like I felt on 9/11: helpless." Great. That's what we want - a bunch of people out there feeling impotent. Now that's some fine leadership!

Could we please stop being stupid about how images and sound seep into the subconscious mind?!

I wish you would stop minimizing the damage HRC is doing to the party. Her goal is to ruin Obama's reputaion in order to be able to sell herself as the more electable candidate. If she is allowed to keep it up for months, she will be able to spread enough slime to effect his chances inthe general. Alrady the polls show this. It used to be that only 8% of Dems wouldn't vote for Obama (probably the same Dems who voted for Bush). Now it's up to 15%. After all dirt flung at one dem by another is moe believable than dirt flung by a Republican. The Rezko crap never would have gotten any play outside of Chicago if it hadn't been for her.

And all for what? Nothing but the egotism of a candidate that is in no way better and in many significant ways worse than Obama.

Why is the 3:00am ad "negative?" Is it possible to make a "Candidate X isn't as good as Candidate Y" ad that can't be called "negative?"

The 3:00am ad states that Obama has less experience and so you might want to think about that before voting for Clinton. So? What's the big deal?

We're not talking libel or skeletons in closets or secret shady deals or ties to criminals. It's not "negative."

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

And please be forwarned that any attempt by the campaigns to either exploit or perpetuate the vicious stereotype of the boozing, brawling, happy-go-lucky Irishman who sings "Danny Boy" incessantly whenever he's not tearfully reminiscing about the "Old Sod" in a brogue that sounds suspiciously like Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way, will as a matter of course be immediately denounced as racist and ethnocentric.

Of course, any photo op of John

"Of course, any photo op of John ..." ... McCain dressed as a leprachaun will be rewarded with an cameo appearance on the Lucky Charms cereal box.

brent: "Is it possible to make a 'Candidate X isn't as good as Candidate Y' ad that can't be called 'negative?'"

Not if my own favored candidate happens to be Candidate X, it isn't.

Was Hillary Clinton's "3 am" attack ad a vicious smear aimed at Barack Obama, or was it part of a longstanding tradition that's "essential to democratic politics and ultimately yields a more engaged and better-informed public"?

There's a large difference between a smear, which this ad clearly was not, and an appeal to fear and uncertainty, which this ad quite obviously was. It wasn't out of bounds by any means, but it fundamentally misunderstands what people are voting about this election cycle, which makes it silly at best.

But, hey, Rasmussen found that 42% of the ad's viewers wanted McCain to pick up that phone, while 25% wanted Clinton and 25% wanted Obama. (Apparently 8% said to just let the damn thing ring.) So this appears to be a case of Clinton campaign misjudgment. Again. And again. And gain.

When will Kevin stop shilling for Hillary? *snicker*

This is nothing new but I don't think it's the add that's damaging. It's the analysis of the add by the news outlets which perpetuates as other news groups pick up on it and analyse it to death. Then the blogosphere picks up on it and perpetuates it even more. On face value the infamous 3:00AM add never hit me as persuasive one bit, but once the damn thing rippled through ever single news outlet with how fear mongering it was and how it's really going to damage Obama did I get upset. It wasn't the add but how the add was going to be perceived by the American people once it cycled through the media a half a million times. What would of happened if the add was left alone and only seen by those areas that were targeted. Nothing at all is my guess, but analyse it in the news outlets and then the blogosphere slicing and dicing is the damage done.

What shortstop said. Not a negative ad and not an unfair ad, but a fundamentally misguided ad that helps McCain and hurts whomever the Democratic nominee is -- particularly if that nominee is named Clinton, since McCain could use her own ad against her pretty effectively.

That was an interesting story, if horribly shallow and simplistic. In concentrating on the positives of negative ads in terms of informing the electorate, Geer and Goldstein neglect to touch on the strategic risks associated with overt negativity--the most important being that while such ads drive up your opponent's negatives, they also do the same for yours. Always.

That's a dangerous game for any candidate already struggling with stratospheric negatives. But if the same candidate has reached a ceiling for voters and has little hope of adding substantial numbers of new supporters, trying to weaken the opponent's support will appear be the only option.

If it hadn't already, HRC campaign has jumped the shark. They've just announced that Elton John will headline a NYC fundraiser. That's sure to bring in the under 30 vote.

you campaign negatively against the candidates you have...

Geez, so many people seemed to take it so personally when a candidate is criticized.

I say, 'yeah, and..?' That's what campaigns do, people. It's not some whole moral compass thing.

What's next, applying moral relevance to a hockey penalty or basketball foul?

Both candidates have said negative comments and use negative ads. This is politics. What is wrong about attacking especially in a campaign cycle.

However, what isa

Personally, I think one of the characteristics that should be required of a President is that they be tough. Obviously that toughness needs to be coupled with intelligence, good judgement and some other characteristics, such as compassion, and the abilty to empathize. But it's a tough job and it requires grit. I personally think Sen. Obama has a number of the qualities necessary to be the President. But every time I hear this tiresome and seemingly unceasing whining about how unfair Hillary's T.V. ads, and Bill's comments, etc. are I become more convinced he's just not very tough. This and the moaning about how unfair the press is when they attack Michelle Obama or Samantha Powers says something truly dumb. They probably are unfair --- so what? Politics ain't beanbag, ya know?

I want my wife to pick up the damn phone. And if it's my boss, tell him I'm not here and I left my cellphone at home by mistake.

Sorry. Below is my full post.

Both candidates have said negative comments and used negative ads. What is wrong about attacking your opponent, especially in a campaign cycle?

However, Sen. Obama claims Sen. Clinton is a dirty politician and himself is a new kind of politician who will bring change. Is he? Will he?

The UK's Financial Times Editorial said this on Mar 13, 2008: "says the Obama campaign, that Mrs. Clinton is a practioner of dirty politics, and that their man is better. Yet whether this theme advances Mr. Obama's prospects is doublful.

For a start, when Mr Obama and his team complain about negative campaign, they protest too much. Throughtout, they have argued that Mrs. Clinton, in harking back to the 1990s, stands for division and strife - to be contrasted with his more consensual approach - and that this miligates agaisnt getting things. If that is not a "negative" attack, what is? When the Clintons say that Mr. Obama started this fight, they have a point."

Well said. No double standard for you.

How was that negative campaiging again?

She's claiming that she's going to be more ready for it if she's surprised by some emergency, or the next 9/11, so that's somehow supposed to be a negative ad?

From Donald's post late last Friday:

Chicago Tribune | 5:13pm CDT, 14 Mar 08
Obama says Rezko played a bigger fundraising role -- "Indicted Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko was a more significant fundraiser for presidential candidate Barack Obama's earlier political campaigns than previously known....
"Obama also said for the first time that his private real estate transactions with Rezko involved repeated lapses of judgment."

Is this the same judgement that Obama used to make a speech against the Iraq war in 2002, and is this the same judgement that Obama is going to use when he is in the WhiteHouse?

And 20 years in the pews and never heard his pastor say nothing he disagreed with? Is this the same judgement?

He's a hypocrit. Just like all the pols.

Given the fact that: (1) voter turnout in this country rarely gets above 55%; (2)election campaigns offer choices drawn only from the narrowest portion of the political spectrum; (3) the American public has shown itself to be shockingly misinformed, ignorant, or narrow-minded when it comes to current events; (4) the media itself has abdicated its educational responsibility, and (5) bipartisanship has all but disappeared from Washington DC, and with it, the ability of government to effectively address our myriad problems, I would never hold "negative" campaigning up as some paragon of civic virtue.

Unfortunately, we've never given the alternative a chance to demonstrate what it can do. Is it any wonder that we're stuck where we are?

How was that negative campaiging again?

She's claiming that she's going to be more ready for it if she's surprised by some emergency, or the next 9/11, so that's somehow supposed to be a negative ad? Posted by: Swan

I agree. It's not negative. However, it's the same kind of crap the Rethugs have lived and died by for the last seven + years, and it needs to be renounced/rejected/disowned/repudiated for that reason alone. It's mindless fear mongering.

The greatest threat facing the U.S. in the next decade is not more terrorist attacks, but economic collapse due to our unwillingness to ween our economy on its dependence of oil. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But every foreign policy and economic problem we face as a nation is related to oil.

Uh, no, fear-mongering would be putting out on ad that hypes up the threat of Al Qaeda and makes people worry about terrorism more than they have to just so you can put an "I'm the only one who can defeat this; vote for me" tag-line at the end of it.

Isn't there a pin-up girl in a cars-n-trucks magazine you should be leering at, Jeff II?

Certainly, there's a way to do a foreign-policy ad on this kind of issue without it being demagoguing, and Hillary Clinton did it. The 3AM ad was great, and voters recognized it and accepted it.

The only lack of success she's had with it is mainstream media and blog personalities went after her for it, often pretty unfairly. It's like how Eliot Spitzer did a lot of good for the world prosecuting white-collar crime that often gets away unpunished because those crooks are so well-connected, but once he gets caught doing one little naughty thing himself, all the commie wannabe-Robin Hoods of the left-wing are apparently (stress "apparently"- don't believe everything you read, including if its on a blog) throwing him off the apple-cart.

….. an appeal to fear and uncertainty, which this ad quite obviously was …. shortstop at 12:46 PM

This is a reassurance from the fact that Clinton has a close adviser [outstanding euphemism] who has actually done that for eight years.

LOL. Reassurance about what? Oh, that would be the fear and uncertainty that the ad starts by evoking. Right you are, Mike.

Hey look what's just been posted over at Politico.
Why it's a list of Obama's "grass roots" contributors. Not a one under $50. At lots at $10,000. Including Rezko himself.

The hypocrisy is getting thicker every minute.

I'm waiting to hear Obama's wisdom about the economy. As for ads, I mute all of them.

Obama will get stomped by the Repubs if he gets the nom. Obama has already shown everyone that he and his supporters are wimpy. They howl at any and every thing that isn't totally glorifying of Saint Obama. They're not ready for the big game.

Nothing they can say about Clinton that they haven't been saying for years, and she is no wimp.

...Rasmussen has BO's negs now 2 pts behind HRC's.
Hmm.

The Republicans didn't need negative ads in 2000, they had the press.

And, Democrats are not in the same ballpark, which is fine by me.

An informed voter needs to hear something, and there is little positive to say about the three frontrunners.

It's not that a candidate is pounding Obama, since that will inevitably happen in the run-up for President. It's that a fellow Democrat is doing it and opening ugly racial and class divisions that are supposed to be invisible in the Democratic Party. Hillary's campaign is built on creating fear among Democratic constituencies, especially the poor and uneducated. It's a pathetic strategy. However, the fact that it is working not only makes me more committed to Obama's message of change and unity, but more disgusted by the entire Democratic party.

I've already decided that after the November election, I'll be switching my voter registration from Democratic to Independent. Both major parties are beyond repair.

Good riddance, pal.

Ditto what Pat said.

Is writing off voters a winning strategy for the Democrats, Pat and Optical? How's that working for you?

Let them alone, ABQKevin. It makes a nice change from weenie's whinefests and Pat's temper tantrums.

The Democratic nominee is going to win in November.

Let's beat the drum for how great it's going to be and how we're going to fix a lot of problems to make America a greater place for the future.

Isn't there a pin-up girl in a cars-n-trucks magazine you should be leering at, Jeff II?
Posted by: Swan

Um, no. Not quite sure where that non-sequitur came from. Fuck you very much?

Tantrums? Writing off voters? I'm not the one who was saying he was going to take his ball and go home if his Obama didn't win. I was simply saying as far as I'm concerned he's welcome to leave the Democratic party if that's his attitude. That's the same childish view exemplified by so many Nader voters that rewarded us with 8 years of George W. Bush.

Is it childish to leave a party where you aren't welcome? The reality is that there are large constitutencies who feel alienated from both the Republicans and Democrats. It's the parties' responsibility to reach out and build winning coalitions. If the Democrats can't hold on to the extreme liberals (who supported Nader in the past) or the independents (who support Obama now), the blame squarely falls on the Democratic Party for failing to satisfy key voter groups.

Yes. Saying you are going to leave the party if your candidate doesn't win is childish. Thanks for asking. Any more questions before you go?

Pat, you've apparently been sitting in the losers' corner for so long you're starting to enjoy it. Take a deep breath and rethink your political strategy.

What, are you still here? I thought you were quitting the corrupt two party system and striking out on your own. Be sure to send us a postcard and let us know how it turns out!

Yes, everyone should relax. Please. HRC has never been famous for her delicacy. But she's not Swiftboating anyone. So stop crying wolf at cherry-picked sound bites of HRC saying something, not saying something, or hesitating for too long before saying something. The victim meme is not going to work in the general election!

For those of you with no historical memory: The Dem nominee is in for yet another ugly general election campaign.