Should Johnny go negative?

[ludwigb]

Well well well, it seems the race goes on. Some in the media are now urging Edwards to let loose on Kerry. Merely being the nice guy won't cut it in the sound byte primary. Edwards' best opening seems to be attacking Kerry's support for "free trade", but until recently Johnny has been reluctant to do so.

I find myself torn on this because although I believe Edwards is the stronger candidate and would like to see him win, I'm not so sure a civil war between Democrats over NAFTA at this juncture is a good thing. We should have been having this discussion months ago. I wonder why it is only coming up as an issue now, even though Gephardt, Kucinich, and to a lesser extent Dean have been pushing it all along.

If Edwards makes trade a big issue and loses in an ugly negative campaign, I'm afraid it might serve to exacerbate the already problematic relationship between Kerry and fair trade activists, leaving us a divided party going into November. But then again, perhaps it would be good for the party to have this discussion. I find it especially ironic that the unions are now getting behind Kerry, just as the debate they've always wanted is emerging and Kerry is turning out to be on the wrong side.

Is defeating Kerry and making Edwards our GE candidate worth the risk of a negative campaign? Or should Johnny just keep smiling?

[The Magistrate]

1. No, Sir, He Should Not

There are two reasons. First, the voters of the Party have rather punished those who have picked up such weapons: Gov. Dean's rejection owes a good deal to that. Second, doing so would do real damage to the Party's prospects in the fall, making a victory won by such methods not worth having.

All fire ought to be concentrated on the criminals of the '00 Coup. Sen. Edwards ought to continue to talk up his own strengths, and illustrate where he differs from Sen. Kerry, as he has done hitherto, and leave it to the voting rank and file of the Party to draw their own conclusions.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AP]

2. What he's doing is clearly working. No need to change anything now.

He closed a 30 point gap with Kerry in a WEEK!

[ludwigb]

5. But is that really generating media attention?

How else can Edwards make the headlines if he doesn't attack Kerry? I really don't think the 2nd in Wisconsin will generate the necessary waves. Edwards has to win at least 2 states on March 2 and that won't be easy. Kerry will play smart with his resources cover every move Edwards makes.

It's a tough call. I think it would be great if both candidates keep focused on Bush, but at the same time I hate to give up the opportunity to have Edwards as the nominee. I'm beginning to wonder whether the brutal effort necessary to stop Kerry is really worth it at this point.

[AP]

6. How did he close 30 point gap in a week?

This is not a tough call at all.

[CalebHayes]

3. It seems he is doing better than Dean (who went negative).

[SangamonTaylor]

4. why go negative? Give him a fair debate

where Kerry doesn't get twice as much airtime as JRE.

His positive message isn't going away, and it is what will make him the nominee.

[DjTj]

7. I think Edwards struck the appropriate tone at the debate...

...On Sunday, he drew distinctions with Kerry and made some subtle criticisms.

I don't expect him to push it much further than that.