Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

The politics of negativity

Voters are now beginning to focus on the campaign for president. Recent polls show shrinking leads for the presumed frontrunners and a closer-than-expected race in both parties. It is time for voters to pay even closer attention to the conduct of the candidates. The strategies they employ as the races tighten provide some insight into the contenders’ character.

It is customary to package a candidate, just as you would a product to be sold by a Madison Avenue advertising agency. Research determines the issues on the minds of the voters and the weaknesses of the opponents. The campaign then develops a theme, to be repeated in television and newspaper advertisements and persistently emphasized by the candidate — called “staying on message” — in speeches and interviews.

Hillary Clinton’s theme was that she is the candidate with experience, acquired as first lady and as senator from New York. Her implication was that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president because of a lack of experience. This worked for a while because the Clinton name was already famous and Barack Obama was not then well known throughout America.

However, Obama was able to recognize Americans’ disdain for partisan bickering in Washington and for the alienation of the people from government. His theme was change. Obama promised a government of reconciliation that was transparent and operated for the benefit of the citizens, rather than just corporate interests.

As time went by, the theme of change trumped experience, and Obama began to rise in the polls. The strategy of the Hillary camp was to assert that she was the real agent of change, but that was not enough. People like Obama, and his negatives are very low. Not surprisingly, Hillary’s are very high. His positive acceptance by so many people threatened Hillary’s success.

The standard political response is to “go negative.” This is done with supporters and staff, so that the candidate cannot be accused of dirty tricks. Comments do not attack the soundness of political positions, but the very character of the opponent. The first snipe was to report that Obama is motivated by ambition because he wrote an essay saying he wanted to be president when in kindergarten.

The Clinton campaign laughed that comment off as a joke, but the next shot was not at all funny. Bill Shaheen, Hillary’s coordinator in New Hampshire, predicted that Obama’s teenage drug use, which he admitted in his biography, “Dreams from My Father,” would be picked up by the Republicans if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee.

Hillary apologized and Shaheen was forced to step down. However, Mark Penn, a Clinton advisor, repeated the incident on television to make sure that the point was not lost on the nation.

Then Bill Clinton made the foolish and insulting remark on The Charlie Rose Show on Dec. 14 that it would be a roll of the dice to elect as president someone as young and inexperienced as Obama. The fact is that Bill Clinton became president at the age of 46, the same age as Obama. Theodore Roosevelt ascended to the Oval Office at 42, and John F. Kennedy became president at 43.

Through this vituperation, Obama has appeared to be more mature and presidential than his detractors. He has dismissed the remarks as the unfortunate comments of a candidate whose campaign is in trouble. To those who followed the attacks, it seems like the old politics.

Voters should not be deceived into believing that Hillary represents change, even as she behaves like the old guard. The past seven years under George Bush have established the need for a real change in America.

“Man, some of the presidential candidates won’t survive this January.”