EDITORIAL – Negative campaigns

In an authoritative voice, in front of a large crowd of supporters and reporters and with Ohio… In an authoritative voice, in front of a large crowd of supporters and reporters and with Ohio governor Ted Strickland behind her, Sen. Hillary Clinton publicly scolded Democratic presidential-ticket opponent Sen. Barack Obama Saturday for mailing out flyers that questioned her positions on NAFTA and health care, stating, “Shame on you, Barack Obama.”

Her public scolding was just the latest turn in a back-and-forth of negative campaigning between the two candidates that began several months ago and has escalated since Obama’s sweeping electoral victories in recent weeks. Clinton has called out Obama for the mailers, and Obama has been victim to recent questionings of his patriotism, from a photograph that shows him without his hand on his heart during the national anthem to one of him dressed in traditional African dress, taken during a visit to Kenya in 2006. The Clinton campaign has not admitted responsibility for circulating the photos, stating only, “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” according to the BBC. A Clinton campaign volunteer was fired last year for circulating an e-mail suggesting, falsely, that Obama was a Muslim.

Both Clinton and Obama have played the roles of attack dog and victim, but neither seems to realize that they are both as guilty of negative campaigning as they are victims to its results. Instead, the campaign has degenerated into a series of defensive, “poor me” statements from both Clinton and Obama, both playing the injured but in-the-right candidate, neither admitting to negative tactics on their own parts.

In reality, both Obama and Clinton are guilty of negative campaigning. It’s this type of negative back and forth that could bring the Democratic Party down this fall. Without a question, the single largest promise from both Clinton and Obama during their campaigns has been that they will incite change. Both have promised to bring an end to the negativity in Washington, build coalitions and restore the United States’ position in the world. But it’s hard to imagine that either of these candidates is offering anything more than the same when they both revert to tactics that have proven successful in alienating voters in the past.

If Clinton’s and Obama’s chief prerogative this fall is to restore Democratic leadership, then they need to discontinue negative campaign tactics that only serve to further alienate voters from the Democratic Party, polarizing Democrats who support one of the two candidates.

The failures of the Bush administration, coupled with the virtual free-for-all in the presidential race this year (there was no incumbent or vice president running for the presidency) and several strong candidates on the Democratic side had almost everyone – from everyday voters to political strategists – stating that this was the Democrats’ election to lose. And now, a year into the campaign, it looks like that might be exactly what they’re doing.