If Senator Obama refutes McCain's attacks, does he look stronger or weaker? This is a questions asked by Newsweek columinist Eleanor Clift.
Ms. Clift lays out all the recent attacks by the McCain camp against Senator Obama. And, then she position it next to the swift boat attack against Senator Kerry in 2004. And least we've all forgotten, Ms. Clift reminds us that while, "Al Gore never said he invented the internet or discovered Love Canal-[] the-images stuck because they fit the easy caricature."
Ms. Clift points out:
The Obama people can say they're a transformative compaign, but at some point they have to deal with reality, however distateful. The old politics is alive and well.
And finally, Ms. Clift gets to Senator Obama's Catch-22:
If Obama acts like he's above it, he feeds the fire. If he answers in kind, he risks damaging his brand as a new kind of poltician.
Personally, I don't believe that Senator Obama loses votes from his base by going on the attack. But rather, I think he dampens the enthusiasm of his base by failing to attack McCain as he is being attacked.
Ignore for a moment the MSM pundits and the polls and think about what Senator Obama is trying to do. And think about those parents and grandparents in their 70s and 80s who cannot imagine voting for a Black man with a funny name. I think these are the people Obama risks turning away if he goes negative on McCain. Just as Obama has to win these on-the-fence and independent voters, so does McCain.
After enduring eight years of the Bush Crime Family, the debacle of the 2000 election and subsequent Florida recount and finally, the Swiftboat Veterans attack on Kerry, are there really Democratic voters who would mind if our candidate turned into an attack dog? I don't think so, but I truly feel that if anyone does any attacking it should not be Senator Obama.
I say let McCain damage his own brand by trying to define Senator Obama. And, let Senator Obama do what got him here.