Unfortunately he will have to go negative but this will not help the democratic party. I really wish they would both stop this fighting its hurting our party. Maybe they should both apply to be McCains campaign mangers because he is the only one benefiting from this.

Jack,

No, he doesn’t need to go negative to win. He is winning by being different, by not appearing to be the typical politician that is hard to believe in. However, he is an evolving talent, a work in progress, compared to Hillary, the finished product. Obama has to figure out how to do battle with the Clinton machine without turning off the voters who so fervently believe in his message of hope and change. Obama has proven to be a quick study, but the Clintons will make it difficult for him to fight without seeming negative.

Hi Jack,

I think Obama’s message is refreshing, offers hope but also addresses the fact that all Americans must be able to make sacrifices if things are to change in a positive way. Go Obama!

As for Rush Limbaughs most recent comments during his “Dream Ticket” radio show, this is all I have to say - “Put a sock in it.”

I enjoy your show and your street-wise commentary. Keep up the good work Jack.

Yes… he should just do it as needed… Clinton has loads of things to come to light, he has to bring a few up… it will be a good training for the general election anyway…

If the 24/7, year long media blitz pushing him relentlessly isn’t enough to help him to beat Mrs Clinton, there must be a moral in there somewhere: maybe he isn’t ready for prime time!! Maybe we Dems do not want him shoved down our throats!! Maybe many of us know he is not electable in November!

Go negative? Who cares? The media has been far more negative towards the Clintons than Obama could ever dare to be. But the Clintons can handle it; they had to do that during their administration, which if I remember correctly was a FAR BETTER eight years than we have had since!

I hardly expect that any negative advertisements from the Obama campaign will be well recieved–at least, not by those voters who have remained objective enought to recognize the hype around the Illinois Senator for the media contrivance that it is. Obama has allowed himself to be dubbed the idealistic candidate, making this image a central theme of his campaign; he seems to be promising an administration that will suffocate realism, so I think that it would be hypocritical of him to start playing REAL politics.

YES. He should enlighten people about who the real Hillary Clinton is and I will not call it negative campaign. If she has nothing to hide, then it should not bother her to reveal her tax return documents or other secret files. But most people by now have sensed that behind that false smile, there is a mean woman who would do anything to get her will. Wake up Americans and don’t let her fool you…

Jack I think he’s going to need to defend himself better and, yes, go negative toward Hillary. I would imagine his reluctance to use this strategy simply because it’s not his style but if he doesn’t, he risks losing Pennsylvania. I truly find if appauling that Hillary would be willing to go negative on any Democrat but this strategy has risks for her too. If she wins the nomination she won’t be able to win the general election solely on her own base. Obama’s Independents will flock to John McCain, African-Americans will stay home in protest, and Young voters will be lost to the political process for a generation. I have already made up my mind that if Obama isn’t at the top of that ticket come November, I will write-in a “NO CONFIDENCE” vote.

Jack,

No he doesn’t and shouldn’t. If you look at the math as it stands now, Hillary would have to dominate him in all of the remaining states to close the gap. He should save his strength for the general election where he will face the guy who thinks he’s running for president of AARP.

Matt
Syracuse, NY

I don’t see any reason why Obama would have to go negative in order to win the Democratic nomination, he has an insurmountable lead. The real question is: does he have to go negative in order to win in November. Going negative in order to knock out Clinton earlier rather then later might be a good strategy, especially if Clinton continues to portray McCain as a better Leader then Obama.

No. Obama should just stay on message, but be quick as lightning to respond to Clinton’s negative attacks. To quote Jack Cafferty ” It’s getting ugly out there,” and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the American voter.

Giving back a little of what he’s had to deal with so far from the Clintons can’t hurt and hopefully would work in his favour and show that he won’t be pushed around by her or anyone.

It’s really too bad that a person should have to resort to using dirty tactics in order to protect themself, but Hillary has set the standard that she wants to play by, so getting back some of what she has dished out would look good on her.

She’d better be really careful though as there are lots of questionable things that should be brought out into the open about her shady dealings, so any dirt dug up on her just might end up biting her in her ample rear end….!!!!

Clinton’s Campaign has made this personal. Maybe he should point out some of her character flaws, since she insisted on going down that road. Just look back at the surrogrates, she has had speaking for her. All using derrogatory, and yes, some racial comments. If this is the person the Democrats want to hold up as a person on integrity, then I need to go back to my dictionary and read what that word means. As far as the women are concerend in this country, If this is the woman they want to represent them, then we have our first black eye. That is why the first women to win the Presidency will be the kind of woman, that all will know is right for the job. So, far we are still waiting for her.

Hillary said, “As Ohio goes, so goes the Nation”, following her big win there! So obviously smearing, fear mongering and hypocrisy works!
If the Nation (or Ohio, anyway) “goes” with such negativity, than YES, Obama is going to have to go negative. Only problem is Team Clinton
can dish it out, but cry like babies when it’s thrown back at them.

This all depends on how dedicated to Obama’s platform his supporters are. If they really believe in him and his stated ideals he should be able to keep it clean and still win, regardless of what Hillary throws at him. McCain and the rest of the Republic swiftboaters would be a different story.

Absolutely. It’s time to take the gloves off. The only question is which of the many scandals Hillary has been linked to should he capitalize on. Whitewater? The David Watkins ouster for World Wide Travel (who gave the Clinton’s $1mm of essentially free travel in exchange)? Hillary Clinton’s Rose law firm billing records sought for two years by congressional investigators and the special prosecutor that were “magically” found in the back room of the personal residence at the White House? Vince Foster’s mysterious death? Or simply her character and judgement in staying married to a proven serial adulterer?

Barack is only pointing out the differences and facts about Hillary’s campaign. He should continue his inspirational rallys and attack with response during press meetings outside of the rallys. It seems as though america was asleep during the Clinton administration and have no idea about all of the Clinton coverups and scandals. It’s time for america to wake up and not stay asleep for the next 8 years.

Patches, Ca.

He better otherise he looks like a wimp. He has to fight tough or get out of the way. Go Hillary!!

I really don’t understand why you guys in the media are talking about the importance of winning the big states in the primaries. Let’s be honest and reasonable, there is no way Sen. McCain can win Ohio against Sen. Obama. Why? Here you go; first of all he strongly supports NAFTA and all of the trade treaties similar to it. Second of all, the majority of democrats voting for Clinton already said that they would vote for Obama if he would be the nominee. Third and final, the amount of new voters that came out and voted for Obama will remain coming out and voting for Obama; this is what makes the coalition bigger for him against McCain. And that is only for Ohio, let’s talk about some other big states. Does anyone remember that McCain lost Wisconsin, and Obama won it? Does anyone remember that McCain lost Michigan? What is clear is this: Clinton is winning the states that the Democrats will win in November no matter who is the nominee. Obama is winning red states by such a big margin, that it could result in a real fight for those red states against McCain in the general election. Why then is no one talking about Obama’s appeal to the people in these, so called, red states? These are states that Clinton doesn’t even dream to win, states where the only factor of having a Clinton on the Democratic ticket would make most of the people vote for McCain. I don’t understand why the media is playing a big role in confusing the American people, is for their own personal interests? I don’t understand why no one in the media is objective enough to see that the best candidate for the Democratic Party is someone that UNITES people from red states and blue states, young and old, rich and poor, whites and blacks, latino and asian. Not someone that is just trying to divide the country and the Democratic Party itself. She is trying to win at all costs, she is trying to destroy HOPE, and trying to end the dream of a UNITED country with her divisive old politics.

He doesn’t need to. He is winning already without stooping to the Rovian ways of Ms. Clinton.

Oh, come now, we all know the most secretive politician in America today is GWB. Snicker…….

With just a few months into this primary election Barack is already giving up on his professed idealism? This just goes to show you that his pie in the sky rhetoric for change, and his yes we can attitude is nothing more than showmanship. There is no way anyone can change Washington, or politics. His advisers know this, and now THEY are setting Barack’s talking points the same way the Washington Barack backers like Teddy, Kerry, etc., will likely do if he is elected, which is very doubtful since he cannot win a large state.

This is something the young voters will soon realize, especially when they see Barack stoop to the mud trough like everyone else in politics does. It is survival of the fittest, and if he cannot cope with a little mud slinging in the primaries without pitching it in return he is in no way electable based on the ideals of change, etc., which he himself has brought to the table.

Mary from Florida

Jack, My answer is yes and no if that makes any sense. He should not go out and delibertly with mallace of for though go after Clinton. However, he should when she challanges his record respond appropriately to the context of what she is saying and point out simular or like failings or weak spots in her. It all boils down to what is good for the gander should also be good for the goose. They have a choice, keep it clean and above board with no slamming (saying Obama is like MR Starr) or not. When one questions the qualifications pf their opponent, the other has the right to challange the qualifications of the other. All is fair in politics and war. I guess what it boils down to is the old saying; “Never cast stones at someone when you live in a glass house” applies; it leaves you open to having your window broken.

No, Obama should not go negative on Hillary to win this election, although there is enough baggage to take him around the country and back. He needs to only highlight the contradiction she has presented in this race alone. One example, her recent phraseology about the rich and well connected get special treatment and representation, while the poor are badly represented is a mirror image for her in this campaign. She is rich and very very well connected, yet she claims she is at a disadvantaged — PLEASE, and CNN plays it up for her, reporting how her husband’s ex- general friends think she is the best contender for President. One day she says the playing field should be level, then the next day she screams she wants an advantage, like counting the delegates for Florida and Michigan when she knows the playing field is only to her advantage. Her cry-baby behavior is giving women everywhere a bad name.

No, but he has to show Clinton/McCain that he can fight back and won’t stand for this pettiness. She started the negative campaigning and claimed she had all the experience. She’s the one that inflated her resume and said she was fully vetted. Now she has to shut up or put up!

Obama has ever right to question these things, but more importantly Democratic voters have a right to question these things because if they are not done now Republicans certainly will. Hillary is far from “vetted”. One thing we learned in the 1990’s is that every year brings a new scandal and I’m sure we have a decade of new ones just waiting.

Why won’t she release her White House documents, former fundraisers.

People make a big deal out of Rezko but Hillary has a fundraiser in jail. Has the media forgot that? Why does not one mention it?

I hate to say it but yes he does. She’s shown that she’s willing to and it seems to be working so I think he is now forced into firing back. Americans always complain about negative ads but then we buy into them forcing the other candidate to do the same thing. When will we ever learn???

I don’t think he should go negative in the way Hillary has. I admire Barack because he hasn’t used the low down dirty tactics the Clintons are so fond of.

Should Barack actively defend himself and point out why Hillary shouldn’t be President? Absolutely. There are PLENTY of valid reasons that can be brought up without returning the mud slinging.

Stay classy, Obama.

Yes, I believe that Barack should expose Hillary. I don’t consider this going negative at all. If you got hit in the face wouldn’t you hit back Jack?

Barack is doing what he should have been doing all along - challenging Hillary’s experience, which really isn’t much.

GO OBAMA!!!!

No, he should not go negative. We are all SICK of that. He should take the high road, but he also needs to get more specific (in his speeches) on what he would do as president.

What the question really should be is why Barack Obama goes negative on Hillary Clinton, and campaigns all about a new Washington, honesty, and change. When asked a question during the last debates, Obama replied, “I think we shouldn’t focus on tearing each other down, but building America up”. Something about Karl Rove’esque blanket mailings and Ohio and the previous statement just doesn’t add up. It should be clear right now that Obama doesn’t know how to play with the big boys, and feels free to dole out criticism, but when he is on the receiving end, just cries foul.

No he doesn’t have to go negative but he has to respond to Clinton’s “swift boat” attack ads.He has to show he can take the “heat.” Barack Obama should not allow any one to define him but himself! Go Obama!

The Clinton team has stooped to a new low comparing Obama to Ken Starr. It is likely to bite her in the butt since it reminds all of us of all the scandals during the Clinton administration. I would think she would run as far away from that as she can.

It is amazing to me that she can accuse, or should I say “infer,” that Obama is incompetent, inexperienced and not the leader she is but whines and cries about how unfair he is when he does the same.

Maybe she doesn’t want us looking to closely at her dealings because we may find out that she is paying Karl Rove to be a senior strategist. Give us some credit Hillary…we didn’t all vote for Bush we have some brains and can see what is going on.

umm, doesn’t hillary have until the tax deadline like the rest of us American’s? just a thought…..

No. Oamba should simply point out that Hillary, by going negative, has decided it is more important for her to win the nomination than for Democrats to win the presidency. She is leading us to eight more years of Republican control of the Whitehouse. Shameless!

(From Stanford, California)

Jack, the question you should be asking is could Hillary win without going negative?

Unfortunately, it works and she threw the first punch so, yes, he should. Everyone knows that you don’t become president by turning the other cheek.

When you are attacked the way Obama has been over the last month by the Clinton campaign, attacking in response isn’t negative, it’s self defense.

I think if he soes go on the offensive Hillary will be in big trouble, she has enough skeletons in the closets to be on ghost hunter.

Rick
Phoenix, AZ

I don’t think so.
I believe that’s a huge reason why he has the support he does.
Clinton going negative in the way she did…was whiny, immature and looked desperate.
Although, you have to agree with what he claimed about her secrecy..

I didn’t know you could win without going negative.

I think he might have to go negative. However, he’ll have to avoid clintonesque displays of fake anger and wild distortions of the truth. If he can go negative while staying truthful then he’ll have a great shot

He should bring out the knives and slice her into sushi. I love how she’s allowed to question his ethics - but then as soon as anyone questions hers, she pouts that it’s unfair or her campaign manager cries about Kenneth Starr tactics. So I guess we’re not allowed to ask questions about her tax returns, her husbands fund-raising, or some of the other ethical questions about her and her campaign? The Clinton double standard is a pathetic joke and makes me sick.

Jack,
I don’t like negative campaign but if Obama is to maintain the lead he would have to fight fire with fire and air some of Hillary’s dirty laundry. Make her explain all of her actions she took during her “experience” in the white house. I also think she needs to explain the picture her and Bill took with Tony Resco….there were flags in the background which indicates that it was an official ceremony….she’s claims she has taken millions of pics and don’t know most of the people. I do think the Clintons knows him well.

The question is should Obama go negative. What do you mean by negative? Should Obama tell the world that one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporters Robert Johnson’s television station named Louis Farrakhan person of the year in 2005. Yet I haven’t heard her come out and reject and denounce his support. She tries to have it both ways and we’re letting her get by with it. We cannot continue to let what she’s done or said just simply go away.

I think Obama should realize that the Clinton’s are going to do anything it takes. He should begin now and be aggressive but stay within the realm of where the Clinton’s wont stay; the realm of the truth.

I’d hate to see him begin to be negative at this point because I think he’s helped himself by running a positive campaign. But, I also think at some point (and apparently right now is that point) he has to start calling Hillary out about her past. She’s not clean by any stretch of the imagination and America knows it. So if she’s going to keep throw mud at him, I think it’s only fair that he eventually throw it back.

God said turn the other cheek, but he didn’t give us an endless number of them.

I think Barack needs to continue asking the tough questions and let America answer for themselves. It makes me sick that Hillary used fear to steer votes her way. The only thing we have to fear…

As long as the sky is blue and the grass is green, negative ads are what works in politics. We are all like robots and have been programmed over the past 200+ years to respond more effectively to negative ads. We expect it. And when someone comes along that tries to run a positive campaign we call them delusional and an empty suit. So, yes, Obama has to go negative to win.

If Obama claims he is running a different kind of politics, then he should not go negative, otherwise, his message will be misunderstood as being no different to the extent that it might hurt his nomination chances.

No, Jack, Obama just needs to refresh our memory of things gone by; such as Whitewater, no release of tax returns and let us not forget the GOOD JUDGEMENT EXHIBITED in wanting to PROFIT FROM A REDO for both Michigan and Florida, at someone else’s expense. Jack with actions like these, Hillary is definitely ready on DAY ONE to go back to the Senate.

the Clintons want to have their cake and eat it too. They feel they can go as dirty as they want, but if Obama does anything remotely like they do, its “Shame on you” finger waving.

The hypocrisy is astounding, the fact that they intend to drag a decent person like Obama into the muck with them is depressing.

Does Barack Obama have to go negative to win the Democratic nomination my answer is no. because he is already walking on eggs shell, he need to stay foucs on the issues and response hard when attacks on his value

I think the media has done a great deal of harm to Hillary. I am not sure how much more hard can the media or Obama can do to Hillary. I am happy Hilalry start going negative on Obama because the media wouldn’t do it. at least she stood up for herself and I am happy about that.

Absolutely, and it’s about time Barack plays hardball with Hillary. She is a formidable opponent who is willing to do anything to win. Barack is above that, but he still needs to make his case with a little more force, and I know he can do it. He’s on the cusp of winning the nomination, all he has to do is take the ball and run with it. Go Obama!!

Unfortunately I think he needs to fight back harder. He didn’t want to, but since the Clinton machine went all out with the dirty politics, I think it’s forced his hand.

I don’t believe that he HAS to go negative. That said, I believe it is quite withing the capabilities of Obama’s oratory skills to read an entire laundry list of Clintonian faux pas, while still maintaining the high moral ground.

I think all he has to do is tell the Truth about her (them) to win the election.
Keep the truth in front of the American People

I “hope” and truly believe that he won’t go as low or as dirty as Senator Clinton has gone.

He should take the time to point out her weaknesses and flaws as honestly as he can. There is that need to juxtapose her against himself regarding her fallacious claims of “experience” or “readiness on day 1″.

My wife is a dentist, living with her and going frequently to her office does not qualify me to take up her position if she chooses to retire.

No, he doesn’t have to “go negative” to win. But he also shouldn’t just take her hits without speaking back with truth. He should be able ot point out the numerous scandals and problems that have plagued her and would again in another Clinton Whitehouse. She has more baggage than any other candidate and they should be pointed out. To sit by and take hits, from someone with her problems, without responding would be foolish on his part.

He doesn’t have to go negative to win and that may actually hurt his image. He can and should, however, be more agressive not only in facing attacks on him but also showing the records of his opponents. This is presidential politics, not “tag” on the school playground.

Well, Obama was winning until this Tuesday, he doesn’t seem to be a good loser. People should see both side of a person. In real world, you can not always win. From this point, I think H Clinton is doing much better. I don’t think she went negtive to him, she is just saying the truth.

In a word Jack…..YES….

If he does he may not win it. His appeal is in his positive campaign. However, he does need to defend himself, as long as he does it with the class he’s shown all along.

Go ahead! Hillary can handle it - that’s part of her eligibility!!! And Barack claims that he hasn’t been negative, but the truth is she hasn’t done anything he hasn’t done too!

Is it really negative to bring up the holes in the opposition’s platform, when he’s not actually slamming them for it? I don’t really think so, but I do think it is something that these inconsistencies should be brought up more frequently than it has in the past.

We know it is not in Barack’s nature to go negative, but for the sake of bringing the country together, he needs to do whatever he needs to do to win. Otherwise, our country will continue to spiral in a downward direction with either a devisive Hillary or (god forbid) a business as usual McCain.

Negativity is a double-edged sword for Obama. If he goes negative, he can make some really good points about Clinton that will be brought to the public eye. Going negative, however, will be a bad move for Obama’s campaign, which has repeatedly stated the fact that they want to do politics differently by not going negative.

If Obama goes negative, it will ultimately cost him either the nomination or the general election. He won’t survive being seen as a hypocrite for 6 months.

Yes, Obama needs to get on the offense. We all know the first rule to quash an opponent in chess is to attack. We need to know that he can deliver a punch too because the fight in November will be sordid.

Barrack doesnt have to go negative, cause the pro-Obama members of the media (such as yourself and Wolf Blitzer) will attack Clinton using the Obama campaigns talking points that are provided daily.

Why not, that is the tactic Hillary used and candidates need to clarify any questions that are raised on their persona. If Hillary thinks she is clean chit she might as well prove it.

Hillary should and must answer those questions raised by Obama.

I am a Clinton democrat who got into politics when Bill Clinton took office. I came of age during the prosperous 90’s when we had a balanced budget and some respect left in the world. Naturally I started as a Hillary supporter. The more negative she goes and the more whining she does the more it turns me off. I have truly been inspired by the way Obama has run his campaign and how he has conducted himself. My heart is with Obama and so is my vote. Hillary who once had both of those now has my contempt.

No, but he needs to show the American people that he knows how to fight. We all want a leader that is willing to fight when it is time to fight.

South Florida

Obama is stuck in a position I wouldn’t want to be in, he has preached round the clock that we need a new politics in America. A politics that is fit to the standards that we as Americans hold so dear. I feel now he might realize that he is going to have to use tactics from the politics he is fighting against in order to get any of this change he wants so badly. Unfortunately, odds are it will either wound him severely, or finally prove that he has some substance to really fight for what he believes in.

Obamas speaches are nice, but the campaign he runs is not. He has sent out those mailers which is a negative tactic along with in the beginning of the campaign making the issue about ex-president Clinton, and that just brought the attention away from Hillary her self and brought up a lot of negative things that should of never gotten started. You may say he’s a breath of fresh air, I say he lies like the rest and has not had a positive campaign. The sad thing about all of this is, in the beginning I enjoyed both candidates and liked both very much, now I am just tired of it all. They need to stop this race which neither can win by votes of the people and join together and fight the real race for the White House!

Unfortunately, I think he will have no choice but to go negative, since Sen. Clinton took the gloves off first. It’s a sad commentary on the state of American politics that the ads pander to the lowest common denominator, and we as a nation are more interested in dredging up (and hearing about) the dirt rather than an open, honest discussion of the issues and how best to address them. What began as a bright ray of hope runs the risk of being dragged down into business as usual, as a genuine call for change gets drowned out by the cacophony of “do whatever it takes to win” politicking.

YES

It is getting close and therefore scary but, I don’t think it is necessary nor adviseable to head down that dark path. If Hillary gets the nod she will not get the White House. If Obama gets the nod he will need to have been squeeky clean to overcome McCain.

Clinton has been brazenly critical of Obama on issues where she is exposed. Whitewater, Osama bin Laden, NAFTA, her failed health care reform…. the list goes on. If a 527 decides to declare open season on Hillary she is going to have two black eyes.

Obama’s already a prickly character. Going negative will only make him seem more like a jerk.

So given that… YES. He should.

He can do whatever he wants. He is not going to win. Democrats are not going to be that stupid and nominate someone who cannot win any of the big states. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. And if by some ridiculous chance Obama is the nominee, it will be like handing the presidency to John McCain. So either way, Hillary will get the last laugh.

I have not been following your opinions for the whole election, only within the last 2 months, so I am unsure whether you have already formally endorsed Barack Obama. That being said, it does not take a brain surgeon to come to the conclusion that if you have not aready endorsed him, you should.

Yes, but he can`t without throwing the dirt into his own grave. Hillary Clinton is not a stupid woman. I think she has enough ammo stored up to destroy Obama, but she is going to wait untill the right time to use it. Obama got his feet wet in politics, in the most corrupt city government know to man. Chicago. These people are usually untouchable as long as their political career does not venture beyond the local arena. Hillary Clinton is standing behind her giant sling-shot just waiting to sail her next big dirt clod back at Obama when he tries to go negative. It`s a matter of who has the most damaging information. Both of them could be wipped out of the race before they even get the momination. Then the argument about delegates and super delegates won`t matter any more. Lace up your boots John Edwards, your on deck.

Candidates don’t have to be politically correct to compare each other on the issues and point out obvious flaws. Hillary is making these statements about her foreign policy experience, Obama has every right to ask her questions about her experience.

He will have to, because the Clinton are good with slinging mud and they will definetly throw everything they can at him to throw him off his game and they do not care whether the voters are excited about the prospect of him bringing change. They are the past and Obama wants to win and get the White House clean and honest for once.

Well, he said he wouldn’t. He said he’s the politics of change, no-negativity. Let’s see if he’s a man of his word, or not.

It wont matter, Clinton will win this campaign regardless. People will eventually see Obama for what he is, nothing more then a happy face with no real ideas of what to do.

Clinton ‘08

I think the fact that Obama hasn’t been negative is what has garnered so much support in his race and his cause to this point. He is refreshingly different and thats the point.

Now, that being said, he can defend himself and point out that Hillary has problems too without going into the negative attack factory.

I would love to see Barack be the first Democrat in a long time to just step up to the plate and point out that this political rhetoric is not the point and not the issues. If Kerry had once stepped up and actually said to Bush, The swiftboat issue is hogwash - lets talk about the fact that you sir are leading this country into war after war, while shipping jobs out, and leading this country into recession - I think we’d have a different president right now….

Obama needs to go after the issues. His points will come across and it wont be attacks on Clintons character. He already wins in that competition.

-Matt

No. My sense is that “going negative” has hurt more candidates than it has helped. Despite the loss of fodder for the news networks’ 10-second sound bites, I would encourage Obama and any other respectable candidate to maintain the high ground by resisting the urge to “go negative”. Do we really want to elect a candidate that has to rely on negativism?

negative & whiny - no; tough & honest - yes

Absolutely not. One of the most appealing things about Mr. Obama is ability to stay out of the gutter. If he goes negative, he joins the crowd and becomes just another old time politician.

There’s a difference between going negative and asking the questions that need to be asked while demanding the answers in a forceful way. I have no doubt in my mind that Senator Obama can be tough without being uncalled for and can point out significant differences without degrading his opposition’s integrity and character. These are things he must do to win this nomination.

yes because she’s going to

If Obama starts fighting, Hillary would be able to deal with it. She would need Bill to step in. After all, HE is the one that had to deal with the republican ‘attack’ machine, not Hillary.

No, he needs to re-evaluate what he stands for, Homeland Defense & Security and talk about foriegn policy issues such as OPEC, partnerships with Eourope and mending realtionships.

If voters weren’t so easily swayed by this negative campaigning, it wouldn’t be an issue. I’m very disappointed that it appears the negative slams against Obama worked to the degree they did. That says a lot about what our culture, our society has become. As much as I don’t want him to have to respond to Hillary’s stupid scare tactics (should we just call her Mrs. Bush instead?), I think he’s going to have to step up and attack her on several different levels in order to convince the “oh no!” crowds that she’s not the best choice.

I don’t want Obama to go negative but isn’t Hillary’s manipulation of fear exactly how George Bush got to be president (twice)?

It looks like he might. The Clinton machine is powerful and will do anything to win. It’s great to see him running a clean campaign, but I would rather seem him in office.

He doesn’t have to go negative, he can simply draw “contrasts” and ask questions, or too nice could be too bad.

It depends upon whether the media is more interested in reporting legitimate matters, or sensational dirty laundry. It is bad enough when politicians resort to negative campaigning, but worse when the media goes into a feeding frenzy over it. Last minute mud slinging only works when the media gets behind it.

I personally feel that negative campaigning is just more of the old washington politics that this country so badly needs to leave behind.

Yes, Obama needs to get negative. I am a 65 year old (white, middle-class–if it matters) secretary who sees Obama as a breathe of fresh air; I’ve already given $200 to his campaign and I’ve never contributed before to anyone. Obama is real!! Hillary is a machine that wears perfume.

Well Jack why not? She had been going negative for the last month; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Jack,

It depends on what the meaning of negative campaigning is. With Hillary it means spreading fears, telling lies, and half-truths on the eve of every election night to her base of uneducated voters to win, and it works. With Obama it means asking a fair hardball question, and Clinton plays the victim card again. So I say Yes, Obama should go negative not Clinton style but Obama style.

Whatever Obama needs to do to win the nomination, I think he should do. People already see that he’s really just a nice guy, if he has to fight back against abhorrent attempts by Hillary and Rush Limbaugh to make him look bad, then I’m all for it. Hillary is not the champion of the people that some people think (just look at where her biggest campaign contributions come from), and I’m glad Obama is exposing that.

If Obama went negative this contest would be over quickly. Hillary has so much negative political baggage, questionable dealings, etc. that very few would be able to vote for her in good conscience. I think that if Florida and Michigan were to recast their primary votes, Obama should go negative in those two states. Winning in those two delegate rich states would cripple her campaign.

- Hewitt Spain
Jackson, TN

No! Sooner or later we need a politician who places principles over winning. Right now Obama is the closest presidential candidate we have to such a politician. And sooner or later the American voters will have to honor such a person. Hopefully we’ll do so before it’s too late — if it isn’t already.

Jack,

My father always told me not to fight with the witless.. she’ll bring Barak down to her level, and beat him with experience.

He simply needs to continue as he started, and let her show herself for the shifty, sneeky, dirty, same ole DC as usual politician..

I don’t think he needs to. Her negatives which have all played out in the press over the last 20 years are clear and he can simply refer to them. Whitewater, Clinton Inc, Walmart, Cattle futures must we go on….Enough already no more scandalous white house years please.

Orlando, FL

No. Let’s actually see if someone can win this thing with a positive campaign. What a concept,huh?

It’s all relevant in politics…they’ll do whatever it takes; make promises that they really have no intention of keeping, and dig up whatever “dirt” they can to one-up the other runner.

He is empty, Cafferty. Alltalk. No action.
Why is the Media “protecting this guy?”
Mc Cain is old.
Hillary is gold.

It’s sad because I would like to be able to say, “No, he doesn’t have to go negative to win.” As you’ve said, his campaign has been so positive and refreshing. I wish all voters could focus on this aspect and not give in to the Clinton campaign’s negative attacks. However, seeing how Ohio and Texas responded to the Clintons attacks, it seems as though Obama has no choice but to retaliate.

Yes, it’s time for Obama to fight back. Hillary has plenty of negatives that the voters deserve to be reminded of. This country can’t afford another 8 years with a divisive politician at the helm, even if their from the opposite party from the current divisive politician in power. We need real change in Washington, and it takes pointing out Hillary’s many flaws to the voters, so be it!

If he does go negative, he might turn off the college students and young people who voted for him because he positioned himself as “above the political fray” and a visionary. If he has to get his hands dirty and sling some mud, he will appear all too human. Since his support is based on idealism and esoteric notions such as “hope”, rather than realism and experience, this could backfire.

Also the more he digs deep into Hillary Clinton, the easier it will be for the Hillary camp to bring up Obama’s dealings with Resko, his support of Farrakkan, etc. He might be opening a can of worms.

I think going negative will only hurt him. I can’t believe how vicious the Clintons are. I thought Bill was a great President and never understood why conservatives complained about his political tactics, but now even Democrats are seeing how ugly the Clinton campaign machine is. I used to think I’d vote for Obama or Clinton over McCain, now I’m convinced there’s no way I could stand to put Hillary in office.

Absolutely he should fight back. All’s fair in love and war.

Nah, he should ask pertinent questions about Clinton (i’m sure that is not that far fetched) and continue taking the high road. The persistence of the questioning will let you guys (The press) do his dirty job for him. He still comes out looking all uniting, positive and clean.

I think he needs to take solid shots but not go nasty. There are more skeletons in Hillary’s closet than there are in Barack’s. Each time she pulls out one of his he pulls out one of hers. She will soon stop when she realizes the shots she is taking aren’t free anymore.

I have absolultely enjoyed his campaign so far, and I am a republican that will vote for him in November.

I don’t believe Obama has to go negative but, he must point out the fact that Clintons’ supportors are mostly poor and uneducated individuals looking for a handout. I ask that her supportors create their own jobs and stop depending on the Clintons to do it for them. Grow up already!

Absolutely not! There is already enough negative ads coming from the Clinton Camp.

No. My sense is that “going negative” has hurt more candidates than it has helped. Despite the loss of fodder for the news networks’ 10-second sound bites, I would encourage Obama and any other respectable candidate to maintain the high ground by resisting the urge to “go negative”. Do we really want to elect a candidate that has to rely on negativism?

Nope, the nomination is already his. If the DNC allows Clinton to steal it with Super Delegates and fear-mongering, start filling up the McCain balloons.

Bloomington, IN

I think Obama is not going negative… He is trying to get Hilary to do what see promised… This is not negative it is just the right thing to do.. Why hasn’t she released her Tax Returns? Why wont she release her documents when she was first Lady.. It tells me she has something to hide…and she will continue to do so, it is about time Obama calls her on it…

Obama 08 Change….

It is because of the Clinton name Gore loss. What do you think Sen McCain and el al would do to it (Bill name) if Sen Hillary steals the Democratic nomination.
I think she may lose her voice.

Barack Obama does not have to go negative in his campaign, but he has every right to question and should question why the Clintons won’t disclose their tax returns nor the donors for the presidential library. What does Hillary have to hide from the American people? He should also continue to hammer upon her so-called readiness to be commander in chief. The thought of a president who used such improper judgment on going to war in Iraq and has shown such poor management of her own campaign are keeping me awake at 3am.

Hillary Clinton’s negative attacks effect some Americans but to the rest of the nation she seems bitter and angry at her inability to win based on her qualifications and feels it is necessary to make negative attacks on Obama. Some of the American public are naive and will believe anything they hear in the media. Will it work for Obama? Probably not. His charm and charisma is to valuable to sacrifice.

Jack:

I love your commentaries and with regard to your question, posed above, Obama should not go negative. It won’t hurt Hilary but it will backfire on his nice clean image. Going negative seems to indicate a state of desparation.

Why can’t they all just get along?

Lisa K.
Dallas, Texas

This all goes back to the fact the typical American is a bunch of sheep. They only think when others tell them to. They only believe what others tell them. We have lost the ability to be free thinkers. This election reminds me of the Bush appointment. We need to think for ourselves.

Why bother? He’s going to lose any way. Go Hillary!!!

The short answer would be no. Every time the Clinton campaign starts playing the “same old politics” I send Barack Obama another $25. That’s how I respond to it. However, he needs to defend himself and I’ll keep supporting him even if he feels the need to respond to accusations and innuendos.

I do not agree with the premise of the question. If Senator Clinton claims to have experience in crisis situations, then asking her to back up the assertion isn’t “negative.” If Clinton wants to attack Obama on ethics and transparency, then asking her to measure up to the same level of scrutiny isn’t negative. Certainly Senator Obama needs to go on the offensive in order to win, but you can’t just claim that this automatically means he’s going negative.

He will before it’s over with.

No Jack he should not. He’s been selling himself as the candidate who doesn’t believe in the old style politics of Washington and promotes himself as the leader who would engage his enemies in dialogue. He needs to keep his armor clean and make sure the mud his enemies are throwing at him doesn’t stick. It would be enough to just remind the voters that there is plenty of dirty laundry in the Clinton closet and the republicans are looking forward to a down and dirty campaign this summer. He should not do their dirty work for them.

No. Obama can scratch the surface and people will smell out the Clintons. From White Water to cozying up with big business. He can also use Clintons vicious attacks and let the public know that Hilliary can not reach across the isle to get her agenda thru because she cannot play nice with others. It is typical Clinton politics that the people are tired of. If Clinton wins i will vote republican……

Hartford,Ct

I have struggled with the idea of Obama going negative because his dignity and calm are what drew me to him as a candidate away from Hillary. As a 35 year mother & firm feminist it kills me to see HRC disintegrate into the “shrill shrew” that she is now becoming. After much thought I think he should go negative… we need him to win. With the Clinton tactics of smear & half-truths.. its time to hit back and hit back HARD. Its sad but the American public will want to see that he is tough and can hit back when it needs to happen. Nobody wants a wimp in the White House.

Yes, but carefully. He cannot appear weak by getting hit with grenades and not throwing any. He needs to demonstrate toughness without sounding desperate as Hillary has. He needs to balance the attacks with his continued vision of a better tomorrow

How many of us would just sit there and let talk bad about us and not fight back, I impressed he was held out this long.

I think he should come out with a very strong fight. Attack her husband as well since he seems to do all the talking for her.

I believe obama should address hillarys short commings a eye for a eye.How can u sit back and not defence your good name,certainly shes no angel.Great coloum bill.

Go Obama, put on your boxing gloves and go after her now! If you wait for her to come over to your stool and knock you off it, it would not say much for your ability to get tough and you will need plenty of that to straighten this country out!

He doesn’t have to tarnish the Clintons in order to win, Obama is clearly a better choice.

Wouldn’t that be calling the kettle black?

He will have to engage her if she continues to go negative. I really don’t want to see it but Obama has to land a few punches also. Most importantly Obama must show where he stands on this issues. Speeches of hope are great but the voters want to know how he will react to situations, though Hillary herself has not shown where she stands.

Jack,
There was a retraction by the Canadian government of that story about the Obama aide. It has been debunked, and yet the Clinton people keep mentioning it as if it hadn’t been. And it turns out that one of the Clinton people were the ones who contacted the government up there to reassure them that NAFTA was going to be okay. They are hypocrites and non-truth-tellers, since you can’t say liar it seems. If calling them out on it is negative, then I say go ahead.

He has no choice, but, I do hope he continues to remain civil while fencing off blows and bringing points up himself.

unfortunately, yes. Hillary has rolled out the mud, and now they both have to play in it.

Jack,

America, especially, the young people are tired of politics as usual in Washington. Hillary’s mud-slinging tactics are to be expected, which is pretty strange with the kinds of scandals she has been involved with. But then, Hillary Clinton is your typical Washington Politician, greedy and power hungry. Let’s hope that the people of America finally stand up for what is right!

Barack Obama has been a refreshing change to politics. He should maintain his integrity, but definately stand up to a corrupt and morally bankrupt politician who will do anything to gain the power of the United States Presidency.

Tabitha
Minneapolis, MN

I hope he doesn’t go negative to win. That will prove that a good and honest person can prevail in american politics. Also, asking her to define her experience and giving up her income records is not going negative. She is campaigning on her experience so he and the american people has the right to know what that experience includes.

Obama started all the negative’s ,slamming Hillary at every campaign about Iraq, Nafta etc. She fires back now he cant take it.She just brings the truth about leadership.I dont think Obama wants to get to dirty.Hillary will tear him apart.He is involved in alot of corruptions that he isnt letting anyone know about.The Clintons have been picked and tore open through the years. They have nothing to hide that hasnt been surfaced already. Obama has met his match with Hillary. She is a little pitbull when she is cornered.I think he better think twice ,before she opens the closet to his corrupt deals. He can sell the American voters ,but he dont sell me. Go Hillary

Obama does not have to go negative to win the Democratic Nomination. However, the Clintons are known to keep information private that should be disclosed. Comparing Obama’s call for the Clinton’s to disclose their tax returns to that of the tactics of Kenneth Starr is outrageous. Whether you agree or not with the Starr investigation - calling for them to have swift, complete and full disclosure of their financial records is a sound judgment. They used $5 million of their personal funds to loan money to Clinton’s campaign - it is only right that the American people know where that money came from.

The Clinton campaign can only cry wolf so many times. The Canadian leak for NAFTA (now we find out that it was Harper’s Aide that leaked the information and that he also stated the Clinton campaign said their public position on NAFTA was more for political than polcy concerns). The so-called “unfair bias” of the media. Their belief that “only big states count” or “only closed primaries count” or “of course Obama will do well, the state has a large number of minorites” … Take one away and they come up with another topic to whine about.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is the campaign that cries wolf … how long is the American public supposed to believe the lies and deception before we wake up?

On a side note - the reports that Michigan and Florida having a re-vote could secure a candidate’s nomination is false on the basis of delegate numbers alone. the 2025 delegates that a Democratic candidate must achieve for nomination is does NOT include MI and FL. If MI and FL were put back into the mix, then the new goal would be 2181, or 156 more than they need now.

I’ve been a voter for over 25 yrs. and for what ever reason negative attacks work but in the case of Obama, I think he should stay the course but I Iike the new strategy of challenging Clinton’s “True” Foreign experience…..taking a tax payer paid international trip and take some pictures with an international leader, doesn’t represent experience. What actually results has Hillary produce on these trips?

I have already notified the Obama campaign that if it does go negative it must remove me from its supporter list. Neither candidate is more important than party unity. If Clinton wants to remain negative that is her decision - it will prove only that she considers herself indispensable. And it will continue tearing the party apart. Obama must not do this even if it eventually costs him the nomination.

Jack -
I’m really not sure if he should go negative. To do so would be playing right into the Clinton camp’s hands, thus initiating a round of mudslinging that could possible cripple either candidate’s chances of defeating John McCain in the Fall. However, to risk not responding to the attacks that Senator Obama is receiving from both the Clinton camp and the Republican noise machine is to risk Senator Obama’s campaign turning into Senator Kerry’s campaign during the Swift Boat debacle.

I wish Clinton would just shut up and admit that more than 50% of this country don’t like her, don’t trust her, and would do anything to keep her out of the Oval Office. If she had come to that realization after the Potomac primaries and folded up her tent then, we Democrats might actually be on the road to a victory in November. Unfortunately, Clinton, in her denial and her obsession with becoming President, looks to be doing everything in her power to hand the Republicans four more years at the helm of this once great nation.

I think he does not have to. Let Hillary continue to shamelessly attack Obama for baseless accusations. The Clintons have a lot to hide….why are they criticizing Obama on the Rezko thing when they have the stigma of Whitewater looming on their heads?

Absolutely NOT!

The reason he is where he is today, in the lead for the Democratic nomination for president is because he is, or at least claims to be, better than that.

Now, taking Mrs. Clinton to task for her claim of 35 years of experience and being better prepared to lead this country is a entirely different issue and YES, his campaign should start asking for some details on these issues.

Steve…
Selkirk, NY

Unfortunately yes. Blue-collar voters are not informed enough about what is really going on behind the scenes of political campaigns to see through what Clinton is doing. So he has to remind people of all the scandals from the “Clinton era”.
I do not understand how the American people can vote for the Clintons. Obama and McCain are better choices than Hillary…Two families (Bush and Clinton) control this country… what a great thing for the democracy….

Unfortuately he does, but he runs the risk of Hillary crying and getting votes that way. It’s a shame the way the Clinton’s have turned to this. It truly shows how much she is just the same ol’ type of politician we’ve had for years. If she could come up with ways to solve problems as well as she does on dishing dirt, she might make a hell of a president.
Mike Sowers

It’s working for Hillary. I am stunned at the number of people who don’t see through that! I guess he needs to get as down and dirty rotten as she is. Then again, we are talking about Ohio. They are the state that gave us Bush his second term. Now they complain because they have lost so many jobs. What the heck did they think was going to happen??

The President of the United States had better be damned good and ready to fight for us. I believe Obama is both smart and tough enough to serve us as President, but he should take this opportunity to make it clear to those with doubts that he has the goods. If he cannot handle the Lady Clinton with all her baggage, how on earth can the Democrats expect him to defeat a war hero like McCain or deal with murderous terrorists in the Middle East. This is the Big Leagues son, and since you say you enjoy playing basketball, you should do what they do on the legendary playground at West 4th Street in Manhattan: You win or you go home! Have you got it in you?

Certainly not. Keep the style and grace he possess. Everyone in Hillary’s husband, daughter, supporters and campaign staff can see what it took for her to change the situation around to her favor.

She needs to be careful of the closets she open though. Everyone is the world knows the crisis she went through with the 3am phone call except it was the “red” one. That’s probably why she used a “white/beige” in her commerical. Yes, we remember Monica Lewinsky oh to well. We remember her husband lying to the American people.

Jack, the Clintons are LIARS and will lie or mislead for the sake of winning. Keep in mine though…she still have to come through MS & NC.

Helen

Yes, he does. He hasn’t had to yet because the media has handled that for him. Now it is time to roll up his sleeves and play in the big leagues for real.

No, Senator Obama does not have to go negative. (Those red-button telephone ads are repugnant.) But, he does have to come out swinging, which I believe is exactly what he is now doing. Let’s press Senator Clinton to disclose those tax returns and White House papers. Senator Clinton says she has already been vetted, but we have no information about the details of the C