Who’s Going Negative? Both of Them!
I’ve basically given up hoping that this election year is going to have been a clean one in terms of campaigning. Both candidates promised it, and neither has delivered on that promise. It’s not just ads, it’s statements as well.
Last week the big thing was Barack Obama’s “lipstick” statement. That was the talk of the week. As if to prove that two could play at the same game, this week John McCain let us know that the “fundamentals of the economy are good.”
While I think what McCain says is true at its core – for example, we’re not all out in lines looking for jobs right now – it makes a good out-of-context soundbite for the Obama camp to use, as did the out of context lipstick statement.
I think situations such as the last two weeks show just how negative this campaign has gotten. Yet, I don’t think it’ll become worse than anything we’ve ever seen. For example, it hasn’t reached the levels of the campaign of 1800, where people were supposed to believe that Jefferson and his supporters were a godless heathens who would burn churches and murder people, while Adams was torn apart for the Alien and Sedition Act. Even worse, both candidates were accused of putting country second, with Jefferson accused of supporting France, and Adams accused of supporting Britain.
So, with that in mind, I’ve pretty much given up on the idea of a clean election. It’s too ingrained into our electoral process.
Thanks, Jefferson and Adams!
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
of course if the Clintons actually helped Obama like they promised too – he could have let them do what comes naturally to a Clinton – go negative, and stayed above the fray.
And oh – this is priceless.
Whole darn thing is funny as can be – good ole slick willyhttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/bill-clinton-ob.html