Obama should NOT go negative now

[senseandsensibility]

He should clearly tell the voters that he will not get down in the gutter with Hillary no matter what. Then he should say, "I'm going to spend the next few weeks showing you how I will run against McCain." And he should proceed to do so.

When Hillary continues her attacks against him and not McCain, he should challenge her. He could ask . "Who do want as President? Someone who attacks other Democrats or someone who will fight McCain and win the White House?"
If she still won't attack McCain, he should ask if she is afraid of him or too close to him to be an effective opponent.

This strategy would allow him to retain the high ground, and at the same time, show the voters that he is tough enough to take on McCain.

[mudesi]

1. If Obama goes negative, I won't know who to be against anymore

I guess McCain.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Ain't gonna work. He should simply ask for explanations though.....

not need to "attack". Asking for a candidate to release their 2005 and 2006 tax returns is not an attack. Asking a candidate to itemize the 35 years of experience claimed daily is not an attack. Asking about the White House papers to be released is not an attack. He should simply ask over and over again. That's all.

[anonymous171]

3. I agree. No slime jobs.

But he needs to QUESTION some of her outlandish claims.

[JimGinPA]

4. He Doesn't Need To Go Negative To Poke Holes In Her Narative...

She's gotten a pass on the "35 years of experience" and "being vetted" among other things.

[Gore1FL]

5. He should start running against McCain

He's can pretty much coast to a pledged delegate victory, and I don't see the super delegates overturning it.

[DemGa]

6. One problem: Obama never had the high ground

Obama's made use of right-wing generated "negatives" of Hillary from the start -- an alliance with right-wing slander -- pure treachery.

So no high ground to retain. Now, Obama can pretend to retain the high ground -- this would be his best bet.

[anonymous171]

7. lol wrong

He's always had the high ground.

[rusty quoin]

8. I just cannot get over how negative ads work.

I cannot get over how a voter can swing over any ad. It's like buying soap because the ad tells you it makes you young.

[Lisa0825]

9. I prefer not to go negative, BUT....

I feel that there is a big difference in the WAYS campaigns go negative. I do not want Obama resorting to any flimsy smears or dirty tricks like the Clinton campaign and surrogates have. But I do think it is OK to present facts that can be backed up and not just spun. For example, poiinting out how she demanded an opponent release tax returns while she is delayiing putting out hers as long as possible.

I think the ad in response to her 3am ad was negative for example, because it pointed our her poor judgement regarding the war, but it was comopletely factual, so I was not upset about it. I thought it was an excellent response.

[joshcryer]

10. If he doesn't go more negative than he already has been, then he will lose. We want a fighter...

...and that's one reason Obama's negative campaigning worked so well so far.

[Altair]

11. You can be negative in a classy way, like he was doing today

[Beregond2]

12. Negative

My better nature says you are right. My fury at Clinton wants to see him fight fire with fire. What matters is which will work. I'm not sure.