In Election 2008, do we play it nice or do we play it mean?

[mtnsnake]

Whatever theme we are going to choose, a nice one or a mean one, it will have a significant bearing on what type of persona our nominee will need to have, so it's not too early to be thinking about this.

In 2004 the Democratic Convention was held first. Considering Bush's dismal record, we could easily have attacked him and been negative all over him, but instead we played it clean and focused on what we could do, not how bad they had been. Our entire campaign pretty much followed suit.

The Republican Convention followed. Did they return the favor by being nice to us? No, it was quite the opposite. They were fucking vicious. They even handed out a pair of flip-flops to every person in attendance. Thousands of demented looking assholes were on the floor, all holding flip-flops in their hands, jumping up and down evangelical-style, eyeballs seemingly ready to burst, saliva dripping down their chins as they chanted, & wildly clapping their flip-flops in unison as every successive speaker stood on the podium ridiculing us. The picture remains in my mind's eye to this day. That's what being nice got us.

So, in 2008 do we play it nice again? Do we stick to showing the positive sides of Democrats, as opposed to attacking the negative side of Republicans? Do we limit our TV commercials to showing the productive changes that Democrats can make? Do we take the high road again?

Or do we come out swinging, right from the opening bell of the convention and right through the entire campaign, negative attack ads included when necessary, until the last person is out of the voting booth?

I say we come down on them hard and don't let up until the last booth is closed on the West Coast. We learned our lesson about what happens when you're nice to Republicans. Enough is enough. Next time, it's time for us to get down and dirty. You can't win a fight if only one side is fighting.