I agree with you wholeheartedly about he different types of negativity in politic,. personal vs policy based. I also agree about the diffferent levels of negativity.i used.

Here's what I was thinking about. There are Democrats who are more hawkish, much more hawkish, than Obama on foreign policy.
I can imagine that when listening to him pound away at the policies one holds as most important, one would perceive his speeches as 'negative' ,in one sense.

As we are all captives of our perceptions, I was making a case for being tolerant of those who perceive things differently and come to different political conclusions.
You might say that I've taken Obma's message to heart and am trying to apply it blog commentary.

I really liked your response to me, btw.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about he different types of negativity in politic,. personal vs policy based. I also agree about the diffferent levels of negativity.i used.

Here's what I was thinking about. There are Democrats who are more hawkish, much more hawkish, than Obama on foreign policy.
I can imagine that when listening to him pound away at the policies one holds as most important, one would perceive his speeches as 'negative' ,in one sense.

As we are all captives of our perceptions, I was making a case for being tolerant of those who perceive things differently and come to different political conclusions.
You might say that I've taken Obma's message to heart and am trying to apply it blog commentary.

I really liked your response to me, btw.

Clearly, for instance, both candidates have spent time hammering each other's health care plans, usually honestly, sometimes in a misleading way. It's certainly a negative attack. However, many people don't consider attacks on policy 'negative' in the sense being discussed here. I am inclined to agree. One must criticize other candidates' policies or there's no debate.

So perhaps negative campaigning is only personal attacks. Possibly. If so, Clinton is clearly using them. Obama is also a bit. Obama's campaign is clearly trying to manipulate the image of Clinton as the Past, old hat, and a user of divisive politics. They hope to convince us that we should not vote for her because of these qualities. I think you can't avoid calling this 'negative', but it's not quite as 'personal' as it could be. At least these are issues of governance, by and large, which is the issue being discussed.

It would be different from insinuating that someone's a coward, a traitor, a liar, a political child, or an idiot. The Republicans love the first two lately, successfully using them even on decorated war vets. Clinton's been pushing the liar one with the NAFTA-gate flap and hammering the child/immature one. Dems in general loved the idiot attack regarding W. I don't believe Obama is using this kind of personal attack yet, but I could be wrong.

To the larger point, I think there are two components to a negative attack. One is the actual attempt to hurt someone else's public reputation. The second is simply setting the agenda, the image, the media talking points, for a time. Obama's problems in the last couple weeks were probably more about losing control of his message rather than his image being ruined. Instead of speaking of change and a bright future, he had to answer questions about his mortgage and the hourly rumors coming from Canada. Even if those attacks don't pan out; it's time off-message. The key then for Obama, if he wants to keep the 'positive' image going, is to find a way to set the media agenda again without it being a personal attack on Clinton.

Maybe he can take a tip from Oprah and give out cars and emergency make-overs?

Clearly, for instance, both candidates have spent time hammering each other's health care plans, usually honestly, sometimes in a misleading way. It's certainly a negative attack. However, many people don't consider attacks on policy 'negative' in the sense being discussed here. I am inclined to agree. One must criticize other candidates' policies or there's no debate.

So perhaps negative campaigning is only personal attacks. Possibly. If so, Clinton is clearly using them. Obama is also a bit. Obama's campaign is clearly trying to manipulate the image of Clinton as the Past, old hat, and a user of divisive politics. They hope to convince us that we should not vote for her because of these qualities. I think you can't avoid calling this 'negative', but it's not quite as 'personal' as it could be. At least these are issues of governance, by and large, which is the issue being discussed.

It would be different from insinuating that someone's a coward, a traitor, a liar, a political child, or an idiot. The Republicans love the first two lately, successfully using them even on decorated war vets. Clinton's been pushing the liar one with the NAFTA-gate flap and hammering the child/immature one. Dems in general loved the idiot attack regarding W. I don't believe Obama is using this kind of personal attack yet, but I could be wrong.

To the larger point, I think there are two components to a negative attack. One is the actual attempt to hurt someone else's public reputation. The second is simply setting the agenda, the image, the media talking points, for a time. Obama's problems in the last couple weeks were probably more about losing control of his message rather than his image being ruined. Instead of speaking of change and a bright future, he had to answer questions about his mortgage and the hourly rumors coming from Canada. Even if those attacks don't pan out; it's time off-message. The key then for Obama, if he wants to keep the 'positive' image going, is to find a way to set the media agenda again without it being a personal attack on Clinton.

Maybe he can take a tip from Oprah and give out cars and emergency make-overs?

I don't know what Holly was referring to, but my reaction is to point out that a lot depends on how you define 'negative'., and that depends on perception and 'framing' as much as on fact.

When one poltician criticizes another or calls an opponnt's capabilities into question, and we agree with his assessment, then it's seen as legitimate criticism, or even positive criticism.
If we disagree, then it's 'negativity' and proof of the most vile tactics.

It's only logical to me, then, that when Obama criticizes policies that a voter supports, it would apperar 'negaive' to that voter, while it would appear legitimate, or positive. criticism to those who agree with Obama.

I happen to like Obama, and I would be euphioric if his message of transformed politics took hold. It would be foolish to wait for a top-down effect, however.Unless the voters take heed and appply the message to themselves, we'll just go on demonizing and dehumanizing, the same as always.
Let's just say that it's possible to support Obama's message AND understand why not everyone is mesmerized by him – at the same time.

I don't know what Holly was referring to, but my reaction is to point out that a lot depends on how you define 'negative'., and that depends on perception and 'framing' as much as on fact.

When one poltician criticizes another or calls an opponnt's capabilities into question, and we agree with his assessment, then it's seen as legitimate criticism, or even positive criticism.
If we disagree, then it's 'negativity' and proof of the most vile tactics.

It's only logical to me, then, that when Obama criticizes policies that a voter supports, it would apperar 'negaive' to that voter, while it would appear legitimate, or positive. criticism to those who agree with Obama.

I happen to like Obama, and I would be euphioric if his message of transformed politics took hold. It would be foolish to wait for a top-down effect, however.Unless the voters take heed and appply the message to themselves, we'll just go on demonizing and dehumanizing, the same as always.
Let's just say that it's possible to support Obama's message AND understand why not everyone is mesmerized by him – at the same time.

At least one of them lost the job she held when she did some dirty work for him.

Yours is almost the $64,000 question. The only determinant “wider group of people” is the 5-10% of voters whose votes won't be nailed down until November.

Of course, if you think you're going to find that group's sentiment expressed at crooks and liars, you're going to continue to be without an answer until the November results are published in the newspapers.

Among the punditocracy, or some wider group of people, I wonder.

Seems to me Obama has plenty of specifics at his web site, or at least not substantially or substantively less than either McCain or Clinton – so I think the “lack of specifics” is just an echo chamber meme.

I think Jon Stewart nailed the dynamic some months ago …

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/14/the-da...

Obama can't personally go negative, or he would destroy his message, his raison d'etre. It remains to be seen how far his supporters and surrogates will go to do the dirty work for him.

It's nerve racking to have hope dangled in front of you and ,at the same time, have to accept that we are dealing with flesh and blood politicians, not miracle workers, and a very fickle public, to boot.