Howard Dean attacked Democrats
by wahoopaul, Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:17:05 PM EST
I have a news flash for some of you on here who are just SICKENED, I mean SICKENED by the "attack politics" and "mudslinging" that's been going on during this primary. It's a "smear campaign" and "disappointing" and "eating our own", etc.
Guess what? Howard Dean attacked Democrats. His whole message was that Democrats dropped the ball on Iraq. Was Howard Dean wrong? Was he destroying the party, or did he make it stronger? I think we all know the answer to that one. Dean attacked the DC Establishment for months and months and months. He mobilized thousands of angry democrats who wanted a party that represented them. Was this wrong? Was this evil? Was this "mudslinging" or "a smear campaign"? I think not.
I do not write this to encourage negative campaigning, but rather, to try to do away with the notion that negative campaigning is in itself evil. It's not. This is a democracy, and we need vigorous debate - even in our primaries. As is typical, the only folks who seem to want to stifle debate are the "frontrunner", Hillary Clinton. They think that policy or character attacks are off limits in a primary. I think that's odd, because we're choosing someone who will most likely be the next leader of the free world. Assessing the core of their character and their past judgements should be job #1 of the electorate. We can only do that if the candidates run free wheeling campaigns where they compare and contrast (see: attack) each other.
So please - no more hand ringing about attack politics. It gets old.