Democracy is confrontational.

Note: the comment numbers are still not showing up on the front page. I hope people continue to comment while haloscan works itself out.

I don't believe in "positive" campaigns. Let me explain - I think the idea of positive versus negative campaigns is a strawman. I am thinking about this tonight because the presumptive Democratic nominee's campaign won't stop emailing me and asking for money. Their theme today is "the low road" - meaning McCain is taking this alleged low road - and implying that they are not. This is false - but explaining, yet again, that race baiting is not the "high road" - is not the point of this post.

Researching one's opponent is not negative.
Questioning one's opponent is not negative.
Calling one's opponent out on what he/she has done is not negative
Calling one's opponent out on what he/she has said is not negative.
Calling one's opponent out on what he/she claims to have done but hasn't is not negative.
Calling one's opponent out of what are clearly lies is not negative.

In fact, it is the duty of candidates to question and highlight facts about their opposition, especially if the 4th estate refuses outright to do so. We must decipher the truth - and as in a court room - this is a confrontational process. Democracy is confrontational.

Those who insist on a "positive" campaign are usually not to be trusted. Campaign themes are entirely appropriate. This year "Hope and Change" and "Country First and Experience" are being used as themes. Themes are always positive. It is hard to argue with either theme in the last sentence. (Though some are arguing that "experience" is not a positive attribute, which points to a cultural malady more than anything.)

What is not acceptable is a campaign using its theme as a weapon to nullify inquiry and edification by calling inquiry and edification "negative campaigning." It's not. As far as democracy is concerned demanding answers to legitimate questions is a positive. This long election process is in the end just a job interview. My business is a sole proprietorship but should I expand and hire one day I will interview someone. If that someone comes in and says "I should have this job because I bring hope" or "I bring experience." I will say "Hope and experience are nice. Now back it up. What have you done? What are your success, what are your failures? What did you learn?"

And so on and so forth. I do not find harsh questioning of one's record negative. Either it can stand up or it can't. Of course, the job interview is not a perfect analogy because being President is not just another job. Vetting for POTUS should be and is more thorough. ( Though if over a period of a decade someone I was interviewing willing associated with and worked for a person who happily admits to bombing the Pentagon I would not hire that person. Period. )

Everyone who is running for POTUS, everyone who has ever run for POTUS, and everyone who ever will run for POTUS is flawed. Though I just said it - this goes without saying. We have every right and a solemn duty to JUDGE those flaws and decide if they render a candidate untrustworthy or unfit to lead.