redblueamerica.com

Can't Obama take criticism as well as he dishes it out?

Instead of refuting Bill Clinton's charges that Obama's Iraq record is "a fairy tale" and proving that Clinton's charges that union thugs bullied Sen. Clinton's supporters in Las Vegas were wrong, Obama attacked Bill Clinton for campaigning for his wife. Link.

Now, everyone knows the Cllintons are liars, and Slick Willy may have been making up the union thugs story. So far, however, Obama hasn't been able to effectively shoot down the union thugs story.

But Obama is as much a politician as the Clintons. And he's trying to bully the Clintons the way they are beating up on him.

It's all very amusing.

What Obama's attack on Bill shows is that if you can't fight the message, fight the messenger. Charge your opponents with dirty politics, because voters don't like negative campaigning even though it works every time. It beat Obama in New Hampshire and Nevada, and, most likely, negative campaign tactics will help Sen. Clinton win the nomination.

Negative ads and attacks on opponents inform voters, give them something to think about and ensure that there will be fewer negative surprises after an election.

But this year all of the candidates in both parties have been whining about negative campaign tactics used by their opponents at the same time they have been using robo calls, independent groups and surrogates to do their dirty work.

It's good theater, but is coming across as a whiner rather than a fighter good politics?

In the end, if a candidate can't effectively answer negative ads and charges by opponents, someone else should be elected. And if a candidate makes false charges, it will come out sooner or later and backfire on the candidate.

So far, none of the Bill Clinton charges against Obama have been effectively disputed, and Obama definitely is on the defensive. He's not only the empty suit in the campaign. He's also lost every primary since Iowa and trails in the national polls.