Damaging attacks of traditional politics?

[John_H]

There seems to be a little confusion among some of us, especially among those who may have never been involved with a primary campaign before, about the difference between standard campaign practice and wanton and destructive bashing. At the risk of sounding pedantic, here's how I see the difference.

DG's press sec. showing up at a Dean event, some low level Kerry ops tweaking Dean with some signs and literature, and some of the other stuff eliciting outrage here happens in every primary election in America. The charges may be debatable, but tthe dissemination of them happens. It is the job of campaign staff to disseminate their campaign's message--positive or negative--in attention getting ways.
If this stuff bothers you, wait'll you see what Segretti Karl has in store for the eventual nominee.

Which brings me to point two: I'd bet a hundred bucks that most of the worst examples--vicious heckling, dissemination of RNC talking points disguised as a Dem candidate's literature, etc.--are conducted by Rethugs.

Most of the really bad stuff happens at places DU--ugly accusations backed up with obvious right wing sources, baseless rants intended soley to sow division, false accusations of dirty campaigning and so on crop up here because of the anonimity the Web provides. So far I havn't seen any campaign stooping that low in "real life."