Never go negative until you have to: this is common political knowledge and strategy. Political wisdom posits, if you are ahead there is no need to attack, whereas, if you are behind, you must attack. The 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary race has not strayed from this common strategy, with one exception (which will be addressed later).

Contrary to popular belief, Senator Clinton did not "go negative" first, why would she? She was light-years ahead, and floating on a wave of inevitability (whether that was a wise move is debatable). Senator Obama, however, was the newcomer, and was behind in the polls - political wisdom dictated he go negative, which is exactly what he did.

First, let us be clear on the working definition of "negative." Policy distinctions and contrasts are not negative - they are required, and are what campaigns are based on.  One cannot possibly discuss his or her own distinct positives without making distinctions with other candidates, for to highlight one's positives is to also bring light to the fact that one's opponent does not posses aforementioned positives. It is when this is reversed that it is viewed, by some, as "negative." For example, Senator Obama claims he does not take money from lobbyists, or oil companies. If Senator Obama asserts, "I do not take money from oil lobbyists" the assertion contains within it the implication that his opponent does, but it is not considered negative. Conversely, Senator Obama can assert, "My opponent takes money from oil companies and lobbyists" and the assertion contains within it both the accusation that his opponent does, and the implication that he does not. However, these kinds of distinctions or contrasts are fair game, and have been a part of the political landscape for decades and will continue to be so in the future.

An ad, position, or attack only becomes "negative" when it becomes personal: when a candidate's character, integrity, and motivations are questioned. This is the definition of "negative" that will be addressed herein. However, if we operate with either definition of "negative" the same is true of this primary race: Senator Obama went negative first.  

There's more...

UPDATED. Note: As I predicted, the New York Times, ABC news, The Atlantic, Fox News, MSNBC and the New York Post have all done snide pieces about this interview. ALL insulting the President, ALL lying about his aides tried to "stop it" and ALL of them complaining that Bill dared to be critical and dismissive of the press corps. This is how the political media gets on "script". Your political press corps is not just dysfunctional and deeply dumb, its also quite predictable. And as President Bill says, almost always wrong

President Clinton's interview with Charlie Rose shows why he remains the smartest and clearest political thinker and strategist in the Democratic Party.

While others suck up to Matthews, Russert and the political pundit class and are so excited to hear their praise and predictions, this following quote goes quite a ways to showing you why William Jefferson Clinton really is the biggest and brightest dog in our Party:

Bill Clinton: "I disagree with the conventional wisdom and the political press. I almost always disagree with them."

There's more...