What is the definition of a dirty trick in the primary

[tobius]

or the general election? Sleazy tactics, throwing mud, gutter politics, etc...

I am not happy to hear about someones sex life or lack thereof, but that wont stop the media if a "blue dress" is found. How can we expect CNN to not air a story about sexual harassment, let's say (ie;Bob Packwood), if MSNBC is running with it and has sources it has relied on in the past? or vice versa of course.

To me the bigger question is what is a dirty trick? If a candidate is engaging in hypocrisy in his voting record and it is held up, is that wrong?

Why, if charges are true (ie; Clinton/Lewinsky or bush/tang), and they are aired it is considered "dirty tricks"?

I have read on this board and others including from the right, that retaliation by trumping up charges, photoshopping photos, creating rumors, starting whispering campaigns, and incentivizing individuals to state something that is untrue is how to deal with factual stories. How can we know if something underhanded is being done if we don't yet know the facts?


edited for spelling

[MurikanDemocrat]

1. It's "dirty" if there is no evidence to back it up.

In the Kerry story it was all based on rumor and innuendo and no substantiated fact. No mainstream press outlet would touch it. It was leaked by a known liar and right wing shit source - Drudge.

[lastknowngood]

2. No point no one is listening they just keep believing what

they want.

[tobius]

3. and why do some root for the worst to be true?

Seen many who claim that all elections should be based only on the issues seem to get quite excited when some innuendo damaging to their opponent is getting leaked, or whispered about with no real basis of fact yet.

maybe the answer to these questions is easy and unlikely to change- human nature

[NV1962]

4. Anything said by opponents - n/t