Yes, We Can Stop the Nastiness

During the various Democratic Party Candidate debates, the Democrats have sounded remarkably uniform in terms of the over-all issues, and, perhaps even more importantly, remarkably respectful of each other. It has not been unusual to hear one candidate say of another, "I agree with what _____ has said, but I would add..." Or, "credit needs to be given to ______ for the work he's done on this issue." Or, "We all agree on the basic issues, although we may have different approaches to solving them." Most of the candidates have been able to deal with issues, without moving into personal attacks. Now that Mike Gravel is gone, the one candidate with an attitude of condescension and arrogance has been eliminated.

It's quite clear that most of us are tired of the sniping, the mean-spiritedness, the nastiness that has been part of politics for some years. When John Edwards began his own form of mud-slinging and attacks which, as Clinton said, seemed like it was taken from the Republican rule book, he got booed at the last debate. Although I considered voting for John Edwards through the first few debates, he (and Elizabeth) lost my support when the unnecessary attacks began, considering the good work he has done. I don't need someone in office who doesn't seem to understand the line between dealing with the issues and sniping. Other attacks have started, some of them by Republicans and by such conservative columnists as Robert Novak, and tensions seem to be just under the surface as the Iowa caucus gets closer. One might hope that they won't become the norm.

But when did such nastiness enter politics? Of course, we can find many periods in history where politics took the low road. In more modern times, Republican Christine Todd Whitman, in her book It's My Party Too, traces this form of politics to the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964 when the level of vitriol of the Goldwater supporters against Rockefeller was shocking to her. Yet, the Republican Party allowed it. And Goldwater lost by a land-slide.

Many of us remember the nastiness of Richard Nixon, and his chosen hatchet man, Spiro Agnew, who spewed venom at the college students protesting the war, calling them "elite snobs" among other names. Agnew left office under scandal as did Nixon.

Some of us found LBJ's manipulation and bullying a different type of nastiness, dividing the country and leading to a split that eventually kept him from serving another term.

Bob Dole brought another level of nastiness, as did Dan Quayle who tried hard to be strong and bold, but only ended up looking like a not-too-intelligent schoolboy throwing stones that weren't quite hard enough but just irritating enough to alienate many of us.

And there are bad memories from the attacks on Muskie, Dukakis, and Kerry.

Sometimes those attacked ran a poor campaign that showed their inability to know what to do in response. Kerry ran television ads of him wind-surfing - clearly the wrong message, and never found a strong enough ad campaign to work against the flip-flop ads or the Swift Boat ads. The Democratic Party stayed so positive at the 2004 convention that they never critiqued those issues that needed to be dealt with - strongly.

Why is it so important to forgo the nastiness? If a candidate is mean-spirited, this person can never govern fairly for the whole of the United States. Their mind-set has separated themselves from 50% of other Americans. No matter what the new President may say about bringing people together, if he's spent the whole campaign pulling people apart, unity won't happen. If a candidate believes the other party has no values, then it's not possible for that candidate to respect anyone in government from the opposing party.

But it's also up to the candidate to deflect the attacks with clarity, strength, but without being sucked into counter-attacks. Clinton, Dodd, and Biden have seemed to do this well in the debates. Clinton clarifies that people can attack her on the issues, but the mud-slinging is not necessary. She has defined the rules of engagement, and, in my opinion, stayed above the fray.

It is possible to be strong and bold and still stay positive and wise. So far, the Democrats, this time around, have done an admirable job at this. But they are now teetering on the edge of getting sucked into some nastiness. Let us hope they pull back, and refuse to become like the people who have, too often, torn our country apart.

Comments

[vitreus]

(PART II)

Let's be honest, she has a record of not being completely straight when it comes to not only the tough questions but to softballs as well. The reason is she likes to hear herself talk, and that is what continues to get her in trouble with undecided voters and her fall in the most recent polls.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing at all about explaining your position on the issue at hand (note to Hillary: this means the question you were actually asked), not talking in complete circles around it. That is where she creates the problems for herself, and that is exactly what she is going to continue to do in the primary (hopefully not the general, and heaven help us if it is when she is in office).

Face it she is a former corporate lawyer, they position themselves or their client for damage control first and foremost. That is why her lobbyist's and pac's love her so damn much. The only things we as voters need to figure out are 2 questions:

1.) Is she the client of the money she has taken (received is too nice of a word) from special interests ?????

2.) Are the special interests she has taken the money from her client to exploit her and her other corporate democrat’s agenda with that will continue to hurt the ever shrinking middle class in this country ?????

As for myself do I sound angry, somewhat abusive. I don't think so, I call it "PASSION", passion for true change !!!!! Not more of the came we have had for almost 28 years in this country.

Good-Day

[grannyhelen]

Discussing the issues is not "mudslinging". However, playing on people's xenophobia while criticizing your opponent's lack of experience IS mudslinging. Had John Edwards talking about "blousegate" or brought up the whole, sordid person past of the Clintons yes, that would be "mudslinging". And I expect the Republicans in the general election to do nothing less.

If Hillary can't stand a vigorous discussion of the issues, and if she can't figure out how to better handle valid, issue-based criticisms, maybe she really can't handle what the Republicans will throw at her next year. Beyond that, maybe she really can't handle being President, when she'll get all sorts of criticisms left, right and center, from inside and outside the country.

And, if she has to resort to xenophobia to boost up her flagging poll numbers...that's not the type of America I want to see, and that's certainly not the type of President I want to elect.

[pmorlan]

With all due respect I disagree with your use of the false mudslinging charge leveled at Edwards. Even politico.com, no friend to Edwards, disagrees with it.

"...Edwards offered his standard critique of Clinton on Iraq, Iran, Social Security and her being part of the status quo. Clinton responded with exaggerated indignation. “I don’t mind taking hits on my record on issues,” Clinton said, “but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it’s both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.” Of course, Edwards’ critique had almost entirely been about policy differences. But that is of no matter when there is sympathy to be gleaned by portraying your opponent as doing the bad guys’ bidding. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6986. html

And on CNN, Candy Crowley observed:

I thought the other thing that was interesting about the debate is when she made her mud-slinging remark, he really was talking about issues. I mean, it was very funny because he was going, "Well, you know, she did this and she did that and she did the other thing." I think he talked about trade. I think he talked about -- oh -- Iran, talked about her vote for Iran, her vote for the Iraq -- and she came back and said, "Well, this mud-slinging."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/18/le.01.html

So you'll forgive me if I don't buy the idea that you're main concern here is about everyone coming together. Especially when you single out Edwards for criticism. If one is truly interested in mending fences they wouldn't start by attacking someone elses candidate.

I've never been someone who seeks to run down the opposition. I don't hate Hilliary, Obama or any other Democrat but I won't agree to let someone manipulate people into singing kumbaya while they stick a knife into the candidate I support.

My suggestion: if you are interested in accomplishing this good idea then you should practice what you preach and not single out Edwards for derision.

[vbond]

With all due respect, Ms. Segar, have you ever been to an actual debate?

Particularly a debate in which one of the most important issues was character?

In fact, the Democratic nominating campaign has been incredibly civil, particularly given the truly nasty things that easily could have been said about all the candidates...

And consider what entirely reasonable issues have NOT been discussed... from Obama's early drinking and drugging, to John Edwards' dicey and possibly hypocritical investments, to Joe Biden's plagiarism, to Hillary Clinton's much-vaunted (by her), little valued (by many others) "experience." After all, were Lady Bird Johnson or Rosalynn Carter "experienced" in the challenge of the Presidency because they were in the White House and all over the world with their husbands for four years?

Get real...

But all of these topics are completely legitimate issues for debate, particularly in an election that is so driven by character, in the aftermath of a sitting President so devoid of it.

All of these topics, by the way, are completely based in acknowledged truth.

There would be nothing whatsoever slanderous or underhanded about broadly discussing ANY of these and many more similar issues.

Yet none of them have come up in candidate statements... NONE.

Why?

Because the candidates have been remarkably reluctant to be critical about and tough on one another... so much so, many believe, that the most important policy and personal issues are not being exercised enough... and ARGUED about.

This is not "mud", and this campaign is far, far from being nasty.

In fact, it could stand a good deal more argument... civil, to be sure... but argument nevertheless.

Worry not... there will be plenty of mud for the Republicans.

[Querent]

Ms. Seger: It's easy to characterize any criticism of any kind as a personal attack. That doesn't prove that it is, though. To make your case against Edwards, it is your obligation as the person introducing this topic for discussion to directly quote the remarks you object to, and make the case that they are personal attacks. Criticizing Hillary because she indiscriminately accepts campaign donations from corporations, no matter how ruthless, right-wing, or propagandistic they may be, is in fact a fair criticism in an election whose subtext is corporate exploitation versus democracy. The entire Bush presidency has revolved around the idea of letting the rich and the corporations do and have anything they want. It's time for that to stop.

Criticizing her for supporting the Peru trade pact, which is NOT a fair-trade agreement, but is instead another gift of unrestricted license to exploit for corporations, is not a personal attack. Criticizing her for her vote on the Iran sanction is not a personal attack, nor is pointing out that this vote was in accord with the designs of the Neo-cons.

In saying, apparently of anyone who is angry with the Conservative attempt to destroy the separation of powers and specific elements of the Bill of Rights, that "Their mind-set has separated themselves from 50% of other Americans," you are assuming that half of the nation wants to validate that behavior, an assumption I emphatically reject. We need to see separation from whatever the true proportion which agrees with this behavior is.
This is crucial. If you're too delicate to listen to arguments over it, too bad.

In your world-view, apparently all anger, even righteous anger, is "nastiness". By all means, let's not get dirty. Let's do anything and everything to keep our white glove clean.