This is the least negative, least dirty primary campaign ever

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

From the hyper-ventilating on all sides someone new to politics might conclude that this primary season is a shocking festival of gutter politics.

That is not the case. This is the cleanest and most above-board primary season I've seen, and probably the cleanest in history. (Probably due to campaigns being scared by the recent example of the Dean/Gephardt negative death-spiral in the 2004 Iowa caucus.)

The controversies of 2007 are ludicrous little things, by historical political standards. People are having fainting fits when any campaign suggests that another candidate is less than perfect. Some of this is due to the ever increasing content-hunger of the internet and 24/7 cable news... there has to be an "outrage" every day, or there's nothing to talk about. And on the Democratic side, much of it is due to the fact that Democrats have been perpetually outraged, and correctly so, since 2000. Outrage has become our conditioned response to everything, to the point where political opponents are presumptively evil. It is a short jump from demonizing Republicans (who are actually demonic) to demonizing every Democrat who votes wrong on any bill, or criticizes a Democrat we like better on any issue.

One comical aspect of this is that any political stratagem ever used by any Republican is dubbed "Rovian" and identified as the heart of evil. Karl Rove did not invent politics. Most of what is identified as "Rovian" today is conventional main-line hard-ball politics as practiced by every successful politician of either party for the last fifty years. LBJ and the Kennedys were masters of this stuff, as was Bill Clinton. (Meaning every Dem who was very popular and re-elected) The concept that Democrats shouldn't campaign against Democrats the way they campaign against Republicans is a recently minted delusion... all candidates are supposed to campaign hard, all the time. And primaries are supposed to be as nasty, or even nastier than general elections! Remember how Bill Clinton's womanizing was a big issue in 1992? It wasn't a very big issue in the general election, it was a big issue in the PRIMARIES. Mitt Romney's father was utterly destroyed as a Presidential candidate in 1968 in the primaries.

Primaries are particularly nasty because primaries have an extra issue that general elections don't have--electability. You don't even have to say the other guy is bad, just that other people might think the other guy is bad. And it's a fair argument. (Arguing that Bill Clinton's womanizing might make him easy prey for the Republicans was a perfectly fair, reasonable argument in 1992.)

This ad (Linked below) from 2004 is a reminder of what primary politics is really like. (The author of this ad was not run out of politics, by the way. He is currently working for a top-tier candidate in 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1DqOwP3Xzc

[cali]

1. brilliant and dead on accurate

thanks for this timely reminder, Kurt. k&r

[Bucky]

2. Romney's dad wasn't known as a womanizer was he?

I thought he got eviscerated over saying he was 'brainwashed' into supporting the Vietnam War. It was a dumb thing to treat as a gaffe, from today's perspective. George Romney actually would have been a pretty decent president. It's that fucking Ken doll he raised that I don't trust.

Anyway, K&R. You're absolutely right. DU is a panic-striken discussion forum. This is a very clean campaign. Other than Mike Gravel, we don't have a single bad choice in the primaries.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Well, he had 14 wives, didn't he? (Just Kidding!!)

[Bucky]

30. True, but only one of them was his.

Thirteen affairs is NOTHING compared to the Big Dog!

[saracat]

3. Really? You aren't aware of the push polls planted about EE's health and Edwards qualifications as

President? What about the planted stories of marital infidelity ? What about the dreadful things being parroted about Obama? Odd.All the dirt seems to emanate from the campaign run by Mark Penn.Coincidence? I think not.This has not been a clean primary for some.

[cali]

6. evidence about who was behind this push poll?

(which I never heard of) No? Didn't think so. More bullshit from you.

[saracat]

8. Here is your "evidence".

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Message_testing_in_Iowa_Elizabeth_Edwards_health.html


November 13, 2007
Read More: Polls

Message testing in Iowa: Elizabeth Edwards' health


Two bloggers today reported receiving calls last night from a pollster testing whether John Edwards' failure to drop out to take care of his ailing wife could damage his campaign.

The pollster asked whether "desmoinesdem," a well-regarded liberal Iowa blogger, would not support Edwards because "he chose to continue the presidential campaign instead of staying home with his wife who has cancer," the blogger reported. A blogger on John Edwards campaign website, doridc, shared a similar recollection.

The bloggers (who I wasn't able immediately to contact off line, though I'd like to) both speculated that the call, placed through a firm called Central Research, came from the Obama campaign, because it tested negative messages about both Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Message_testing_in_Iowa_Elizabeth_Edwards_health.html+push+poll+Edwards+wife+health&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[cali]

10. Do you realize that your post that I responded to claimed that ALL

the dirt emanated from Clinton's campaign, and that this piece indicates that the bloggers thought it came from Obama's campaign? I don't think there's evidence to tie it to either of them, but it looks like it's less likely that it came from Clinton- contrary to your initial claim.

[saracat]

12. I will find the other article.I posted it earlier.You indicated you hadn't heard of the "push poll".

[Cameron27]

9. No one's blaming Clinton or Mark Penn but you,

Clinton was also targeted in that push poll. It's also been speculated that it came out of the Edwards camp, since the question about EE's health was framed to evoke outrage, and the other question was whether he was too liberal...which has never a problem with the Democratic base.

[saracat]

11. Really.Central Marketing has since been proven to be a subsidiary of Wilson Strategy's

which is linked to Penn's company. I will look that up as well. Just like Clinton had nothing to do with the "muslim comments'.Riiight.Just like this drug use stuff.Just like "plants" and on and on.This has been despicable and certainly not "clean".

[saracat]

16. Here is another link to Penn's Firm

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RX5s1gve3XcJ:thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/the-negative-message-testing-against-edwards-and-clinton-in-iowa-somethings-fishy/+Mark+Penn+Central+Marketing+Edwards+Health+push+Poll&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[Cameron27]

18. If there was a way to link

anyone to that push poll, but especially to Clinton, it would have been broadcast far and wide by now.

[saracat]

20. Right.It took quite a while to expose her machinations on Obama as well.

These things are almost never exposed during the primary and links are often exposed years later as in the John McCain incident.Mark Penn has definately studied Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. Much of this is invested in plausible denialbilty , their favorite tactic.By the time blame is assigned the horse is already out of the barn!

[Cameron27]

23. I'll wait until someone

besides you finds enough dots to connect this story to anyone.

[saracat]

Umm. that link wasn't me! And no "proof' from anyone would ever satisfy you!

Even the recent "admissions" regarding the Obama comments by the Clinton Campaign mean nothing to some.Politics as usual.

[terisan]

4. I thought Romney's father was destroyed by media for admitting to having been brainwashed.

that made him seem too weak to be prez. in those days.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. That was the issue, but it was an off-hand comment... one poor choice of words

If I'm remembering right, I think he was explaining his earlier support for Vietnam based on rosy reports of success from the military.

Yet it is remembered today as if he had claimed that he was actually kidnapped by the Army and brain-washed, because that's how his opponents played it.

[napi21]

5. You're right of course! It's funny though, if I say anything similar

here on DU about someone being too sensitive, or better to bring it out now and put the issue to bed than let it fester as fodder for the Pubs, I get slammed, smacked, and called names!

Wait until we get to the General Election campaign. If people thik there's nastiness now, they're really in for a BIG surprise!

[Cameron27]

7. Thanks Kurt,

if you go back further, shield your eyes lol. I think television may have actually cleaned things up.

K&R

[Vickers]

14. I agree, this primary is not out of the oprdinary. The converse though is

that a negative ad has never caused me to champion the *other* candidate.

[Rock_Garden]

15. K&R for K&H - the wisest of words.

[OHdem10]

17. Absolutely dead on. More like food fights than a political fight

[Bjorn Against]

22. And that is exactly the problem...

We are facing a crisis in this nation yet we have chosen to focus this primary season on haircuts, kindergarten papers, UFOs, and cackling.

Is it really a good thing that our candidates are engaged in petty squabbling rather than fighting about the real issues that effect our nation?

I can't really agree or disagree with the OP because on one hand I see the point, but on the other hand we are getting all wound up about the dumbest of "issues" and the real issues are being left on the back burner far too often. I would much rather have a political fight than a food fight among our candidates.

[JohnnyLib2]

19. Thanks for the reminder. For the most part,

I just don't hear folks in general being steamed up the way we internet types are. Yet, anyway.

Recommended.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

21. This is merely a personal observation. The Democratic candidates seem to want to maintain

civil, professional relationships with each other, even though there's some understandable snark. I find it encouraging that the discourse has remained at this level. If the Democratic candidates had resorted to mud slinging early on, they'd be finished by now.


I can't really tell what it is the Republican candidates want. Although, speaking from my own perspective, I did enjoy the Springer moment between Romney and Guiliani. :evilgrin: MKJ

[philly_bob]

24. Never watched primaries this closely before. Appreciate your perspective...

but reading other replies to your OP carefully to see if experienced hands agree with your evaluation of low primary nastiness.

By my count, the agrees outnumber disagrees 6-0.

I was in New York for an especially nasty primary fight between two Democratic politicians -- one was Geraldine Ferraro, the other was Liz Holtzman (I think) -- that was distasteful to watch and, in my opinion, led to the election of Alfonse D'Amato, the anti-consumer Republican that approved ATM fees for banks and other pro-banking legislation.

I guess the test is whether Dems will be able to unite behind eventual candidate...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Just watch the linked ad from 2004... it is so nasty it exceeds what the pugs did vs. Dems in 2002

And that's in a race we all remember!

[Occam Bandage]

26. I remember this one. Most egregious primary ad ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-vEwD_7Hk

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. LOL. "Take that body piercing back to Vermont wehre it belongs."

[Occam Bandage]

27. kick

[sandnsea]

31. Only because the machine that smeared Dean

blew up in its owners' face.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Yep!

I have to think half the people here have never seen a campaign before.

And the breathless outrage with which people greet each new "attack" is just silly. This is all standard stuff, and in the end, 99% of it won't matter one whit.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. If anyone this time ran a standard vanilla negative TV ad I cannot imagine the reaction

There was a news story about a campaign planning to "go negative" by saying it had a better health care plan than another campaign.

Won't somebody think of the children!!!

[rAVES]

34. Its a good thing... people arent accepting bullshit anymore.. no?