Tonight, Obama should pledge no negative ads...

[CoffeeCat]

It's highly likely that one of the audience members will ask Obama and McCain
about the attacks and negative campaigning.

Barack Obama should use the question and the occasion to pledge that his
campaign will only engage in positive and issue-oriented campaigning--throughout
the remained of the campaign, "because that's what the American people deserve."

Then, Obama should turn toward McCain and ask him to join him in this pledge, "for
the good of the country and the American people."

I think this could be a big winner for Obama.

[iceman66]

1. Yes.

McCain is running 100% negative ads right now. Wouldn't hurt to point that out.

[DemzRock]

2. No, I'm not so sure. McCain and the 527s will continue no matter what...

And if Obama takes the high road, he will turn into Kerry.

[NotThisTime]

18. Exactly right....

[27inCali]

32. I would have agreed with you until the last debate

when it was clear the people were really turned off by the negative crap.

I think it has something to do with the fact that the country as a whole is hurting so bad, it's kinda sobered people up and raised the maturity level of the electorate.

They wanna hear some realistic solutions and the negative shit just seems like a distraction from those answers they are so desperate for.

I wouldn't have thought it at all, but it's what seems to be happening.

Audiences gave Obama a lot of credit for being the adult at the debate, criticizing in a mature and relevent fashion.

I think a pledge of a positive campaign would at least put McNuts in an awkward position, since he will definately be trying to go ugly negative at the debate.

[Lerkfish]

3. I don't think Obama should declare open season on himself

which is what that would be, essentially.

[Cha]

24. Right...Obama's ads are showing the public

what mccain is up to..no need to stop that.

[BuyingThyme]

4. Negative ads are an important part of campaigning.

[Mist]

5. Who's to say what's negative? Rethugs think telling the truth is negative! nt

[BuyingThyme]

9. Negative campaigning is when you say something negative about your opponent.

Positive campaigning is when you say something positive about yourself.

There is nothing wrong with negative campaigning.

[Mist]

16. Yes, but I was making a point re: Rethug perceptions. nt

[endarkenment]

6. no he shouldn't

why should we cripple our campaign with that restriction?

Obama did exactly what needed to be done: when McCain decided to go negative with irrelevant smears the Obama campaign went negative with relevant attacks on McCain's actual record. Keating 5 and the S&L scandal vs what some anti-war protester was doing when Obama was eight.

When Democrats don't fight back they look weak. Negative campaigns work by discouraging the target's leaning-to voters from participating. Pretending that they don't work is just stupid.

[GrizzlyMan]

7. That's against the debate rules

Someone posted a list of the debate rules, and it specifically mentioned candidates are prohibited from asking the other to take a pledge.

Beyond that, it would be just plain dumb. People say they don't like negative ads but in reality, they can move the needle. There's no way Obama should give up his right to defend himself against smears.

[SurfingAtWork]

8. It isn't wise to unilaterally disarm yourself, while your opponent is unloading on you

with a chaingun

[ellacott]

10. He shouldn't take any options off the table

Even when he's had issue oriented ads he was still accused if being negative.

[jenmito]

11. He can't. A "negative ad" is considered to be one if the ad mentions the opponent's name...

and McCain will claim that his ads are merely "pointing out differences" or "contrasts."

[Vinca]

12. It depends on what negative is. I don't think pointing out unfavorable

things that happen to be true are negative. The McBush campaign is running blatantly dishonest ads by pulling a couple of words out of context and then making up a story to go with them.

[jberryhill]

13. Confusing "negative" with "smear"

If John McCain supports strangling puppies, then stating that he does so is "negative" and objectively factual.

Saying "John McCain is a coward" is a wholly subjective character attack.

These things can be distinguished.

[anigbrowl]

14. What I think will happen...

instead of going on the defensive or saying he's the victim of GOP smears, Obama will turn the attack on McCain and say this is what the GOP is about - smearing him, smearing veterans (Kerry, Cleland), smearing Gore, Clinton...Republicans don't care about results, just about tearing the other guy down. Of course, we on the left like to trash the GOP too, but on the whole I think we can demonstrate that the country does better when the Democrats are in office.

[torbird]

15. From a short-term standpoint, I agree

We're in an endgame right now, and likely more people would remember that Obama was the "good guy" tonight who called for an end to negative ads than would care if he actually followed through. And besides, as someone else noted, the 572s and surrogates would continue the smear ads anyway. Obama and McCain both have more than enough surrogates to get all the dirt out there before election day.

I think Obama ought to seize the momentum tonight and do just this.

[americanstranger]

17. No. Obama is controlling the narrative now.

Part of the reason for that is because he is not afraid to swing back on the negative crap the GOP throws at him.

Screw the pledge. You don't take off your helmet for the fourth quarter of a football game just because you're winning, because you can still get your head koshed if you're not careful.

- as

[pirate_satellite]

19. Why?

Why should Obama do such a thing?

McCain's negative ads seem to be backfiring, hurting him in the polls. Obama's seem to be effective, tying McCain to the current banking crisis through reminders of the Keating Five.

If Obama tried such a stunt during the debate it would only create the impression that he's afraid of dirt that McCain has yet to air. Furthermore it would play into conservative caricatures of liberals as afraid of conflict (and thus unsuitable to be Commander-in-Chief). John Kerry, Al Gore and Mike Dukakis all played nice and we see how that worked out.

While I don't think Obama should lead the race into the gutter in this election by any means, I think their current strategy of coming back with both guns blazing every time McCain goes below the belt is the perfect strategy to fight the Republicans with. It'll make them leery of launching new attacks (which aren't working anyway) for fear of the reprisals from the Obama camp.

[BuyingThyme]

27. Welcome to DU, Pirate_Satellite!

:hi:

[Overseas]

20. NO NO NO no pledges to McLiar and the Lying RNC that runs him.

Obama has been trying to stay issue oriented throughout. Even his so called negative ads are issue focused-- we mention Keating because it's all about deregulation of banking, thus relevant today. Obama has been doing that
and hoping his opponents would do the same. But they have resorted to the kitchen sink strategies and tossed crap at Obama because his policies are the most attractive to the public and they can't find another way to get ahead.

McLiar would love Obama to make that pledge. Then the RNC would launch a blizzard of negative attacks in swing states but all done by 527s. Oh gosh, those are 527s. We condemn them.

And when Democratic 527s issue negative ads, the RNC would get TV time from the Republican owned corporate media to express their OUTRAGE AT OBAMA BREAKING HIS PROMISE !! Oh Horrors !!

[TwilightGardener]

21. Never--you don't go into the last rounds with a desperate opponent

with one hand tied.

[npincus]

22. oh, Hell no.

Why back himself into a corner like that? Obama shouldn't run a positive campaign if he is being pelted with turds- he ahs to fight back immediately. How many Dems have lost for lack of reponse?

[democrattotheend]

23. Not pledge, but ask McCain on the spot if he will agree to no negative ads

So that the deal only holds if McCain agrees to it. Great idea though.

[Shakespeare]

25. Absolutely not.

What a silly suggestion.

[Tatiana]

26. No. I think that would really be "waving the white flag of surrender"

and just giving the Rethugs free reign to dominate the airwaves with slime.

At least now that there has been some push-back with Keating Five, they are thinking about how far they can/should go because there is the fear of the Obama campaign hitting them with something truly devastating.

It's our ace in the hole - the threat to show McCain just what negative is. We don't necessarily have to go there, but we've got to keep all our options open.

[CakeGrrl]

28. I don't think Obama should "blink" first - McCain is the one running the dirty campaign

and Obama's ads may be negative, but they're based on unpleasant TRUTHS. He shouldn't do anything to validate the notion that he's being as negative as McCain.

[Swede]

29. Kerry didn't respond to the smears until it was too late.

It has to be counterattacked.

[Zenmaster]

30. No. That sounds like a McCain tactic

Along the lines of "I've asked my opponent to do Town Halls with me...."

No. Obama needs to keep away from doing McCain lame tactics that have been failing miserably.

[TankLV]

31. I think obama is doing just fine as he is...he's winning w/the strategy he's been doing...

meanwhile, the insane ticket, the dumb and dumber ticket, is sinking FAST...

this time I think america is reassured by obama's steady and quite deameanor...