Probably not. But it's fun to watch as all of the negative campaigning takes place in the Democratic Presidential race and bomb-thrower after bomb-thrower goes down in flames. A lot of really outrageous claims have been made by political "operatives" who then are either fired or asked to resign.
It almost seems like a new twist on an old tactic. It used to be if you had something negative to say about your opponent, you just came out and said it. Then you'd say it through surrogates so that if it backfired you could say that you didn't support it. Now, you can have someone say it and before it gets you in trouble get rid of them.
It doesn't change the fact that someone said it, but you can pretend to be above all of that. I don't think that anyone is really fooled by it all though. There have been way too many of these convenient firings or disavowals of the support of bomb-throwers for it to be anything else but another political ploy.
Look at the character of some of the negative campaign remarks while we're on the topic. Remember, that we're talking about purely Democratic Party politics. The campaign in question is between two Democratic candidates that differ only marginally in their politics. There hasn't been much need for Republicans to step into the fray, because they aren't running against one — yet.
The negative campaigning has touched on the alleged religion of one of the candidates. Is he or isn't he a Muslim, as if that really matters. Why should it matter? It would seem that the campaign that raised the issue, and then got rid of their bomb-thrower thinks that it matters to Democratic voters. Does this imply that the oh-so-tolerant Democratic party might have a problem with religious discrimination?
The negative campaigning has touched on the race of one of the candidates, in more than one way, and from more than one side of the issue. Is Barack Obama getting a pass because he's a black man as failed Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro seemed to imply? Is he "not black enough" as Al Sharpton implied? Could it be that the Democratic party, which relies so heavily upon the black vote and is quick to condemn even a hint of white racism (ala Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond, the longest serving Senator in history), has a problem with racism in its own ranks?
The negative campaigning has touched on the gender of one of the candidates as well, but not so much from the males in the campaign. Rather the female candidate has complained about the men ganging up on her and picking on her because of her gender, as if it should give her a pass. Again, Geraldine Ferraro made a point of gender as being important to the campaign as well. Aren't feminists claiming that it's about equality? So why should gender matter in the race at all?
As much as I detest both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I wish they'd campaign on the issues. The "go negative without going negative" approach to this campaign is insulting to Democratic voters, and damaging to the Democratic party (not that that last is such a bad thing in my view).
It also points to the "power at any price" mentality of politicians today, particularly that of Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been responsible for most of the negative campaigning. There's a long way to go yet before November. The negative campaigning is dividing the Democratic party quite nicely.
Perhaps if Hillary's campaign goes down in flames we'll see an abatement of the politics of personal destruction.
Somehow though, I doubt it.
Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website.
No comments:
Post a Comment