Has Obama or Clinton made a pledge to avoid negative campaigning?

[maximusveritas]

In the aftermath of the spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, some of Hillary's surrogates (like Tom Vilsack and some others in the media), have been saying that Obama broke his pledge to avoid negative politics when he referred to Clinton's position as "Bush-Cheney light" (never mind the fact that Clinton had previously called Obama's position "irresponsible" and "naive").

Now I've searched far and wide for such a pledge and I've found no hint of it. The only statement I can find even close was Obama's statement that "the campaigns shouldn't be about making each other look bad, they should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours."

Meanwhile, I found this similar statement from Clinton: "I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction"

So while both campaigns have stated that they'd like to keep things positive, it appears that neither has really made a pledge. Does anyone know what pledge the Hillary campaign is talking about?

Link to Vilsack's statement:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/07/sweet_blog_saturday_special.html

[polichick]

1. Don't think it was an actual pledge...

Obama just included that idea in some of his early speeches.

[maximusveritas]

2. Yeah, that's what I think

Of course, every candidate has said something about avoiding negative campaigning. But only Obama ever gets hit with this idea that he's promised or pledged not to campaign negatively and is therefore breaking that promise. I've seen this multiple times in the media and from his opponents.

[Tellurian]

18. Obama made the pledge but has broken his word...again!

So much for The Audacity of Hope!

Now, it's just The Audacity of Obama!

Attacks could tarnish Obama's 'hope' theme

JASON CLAYWORTH REGISTER STAFF WRITER

July 27, 2007

Barack Obama’s message of hope – along with his promise to run a clean presidential campaign – could be jeopardized by comments such as calling Hillary Clinton “Bush-Cheney Lite,” several Iowa political experts warned today.

“It puts him in a box, because now it sort of paints him, anytime he attacks, that he’s not being the candidate of hope,” said Cary Covington, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa.

The national squabble began after this week’s CNN-YouTube debate when Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, declined to say she would meet leaders of certain nations in her first term. Instead, she said she would first begin talks through ambassadors, allowing groundwork to be set before top leaders would meet.

Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois, said he would meet with those leaders during his first year. He accused Clinton of reversing her promise to ease strained relationships with other countries, including North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and Syria.

Both candidates took shots at each other the next day. Obama asked if Clinton would “simply continue the Bush-Cheney policies.” Clinton, to Iowa reporters, called Obama’s stand “naïve.”

Then, on Thursday, Obama told reporters that he doesn’t want “Bush-Cheney lite,” referring to Clinton. Clinton fired back by questioning one of Obama’s key campaign platforms: hope.

“We have to ask, ‘What's ever happened to the politics of hope?’" Clinton questioned.

Covington said the public disagreement isn’t a sign that the campaigns are in trouble but, rather, a statement how important it is that each aggressively respond to what could be perceived as weakness.

“It’s a lesson that’s been learned over and over again: Don’t let any attack go unanswered but answer immediately back,” Covington said.

Kedron Bardwell, an assistant professor of political science for Simpson College, said Clinton could face some tough consequences if Obama successfully links her with President Bush, who currently has low approval ratings.

“Since his whole campaign is about change, the more he can connect Clinton to the Bush administration the better,” Bardwell said.

Bardwell added, however, that the more Obama uses such tactics, the harder it will be for him to continue to claim he is running a clean campaign.

“I think as his campaign wears on he is going to get increasingly locked up in fights like this and it will become harder and harder for him to say he’s running a new kind of campaign that doesn’t engage in those types of fights,” Bardwell said.

Obama's campaign declined to make the candidate available to discuss the issue, saying it wished to focus on his rural development message today.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070727/NEWS/70727038/1001/COMM11

[Ethelk2044]

20. Obama did not Break a Promise. He said He would not Attack

He did not. He said if attacked, He would respond. He responded. Hillary is paying the price now. It is the very reason why she was Heckled today. People do not trust or believe her.

[napi21]

29. I don't think so. I don't look at his response as an attack.

The MEDIA DOES! I think it was simply telling the voters he has a different position than Hillary. There's nothig wrong with that! The media has made this into something it's not!

[hijinx87]

13. going negative will never go away

because it almost always works. politics ain't beanbag.

[napi21]

3. I don't remember the exact wording, but I do recall Obama talking

against negative campaignining. I also recall many people saying at the time that it can't last!

[Ethelk2044]

4. Obama never hits anyone first. However, several people have attempted to go after

him. He has a right to respond. If they start whining because he responds to them, they should have never started going negative against him in the first place. He is not going to be stupid and not respond to their negative allegations. People have a problem with him responding to someone who went negative on him first, should get a grip because he does have a right to respond to the other candidates.

[napi21]

11. I have no problem with him responding! If he wouldn't have, he'd be an idiot!

I guess my problem is not necessarily with Obama and Clinton, but with the way the media is playing this. There are two candidates who have different opinions of how to deal with foreign policy. Well, yeah!!! Each voter can decide who they agree with, and go on! It's ONE subject, and only PART of MANY different position each candidate will differ.

[sandnsea]

9. He still does

It's too bad some people can't differentiate between wanting a change in Bush-Cheney "stay the course" policy and small-minded gotcha-games.

[elizm]

19. He doesn't hit ifirst...

...but thank goodness he responds when attacked.

[Tellurian]

22. And everytime he does...he digs himself into a deeper hole..

[Ethelk2044]

23. Hillary's numbers have gone down. That is why she is whining now

[elizm]

25. Hillary has known all along her numbers are not what we see...

...That is why she feels the need to attack.

[Tellurian]

27. Bullshit!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. False. HRC's numbers have risen, Obama's declined since the debate

What polls are you using?

[jefferson_dem]

5. Obama critics suggest that his efforts to distinguish himself as a candidate,

especially the most effective ones, are departures from his message of a "new kind of politics."

Ironically, their faux protestations represent the "small politics" Obama is critical of in the first place.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Name-calling regarding your chief rival is about as "small politics" as it gets...

;)

[jefferson_dem]

37. Perhaps so, especially calling a fellow candidate "naive" and "irresponsible"...

;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. I agree and HRC started this and BO had no choice but to fight back nt

[Kagemusha]

6. What I heard was "so much for the politics of hope".

Which is not the same thing.

[sandnsea]

7. More politics as usual

They've been hauling that stupid canard out every single time Obama tells the truth about anything. I say he hauls out some Harry Truman "I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

[TeamJordan23]

8. Wake up, this is not negative campaigning. This is about differences in foreign policies. nm

[liberalnurse]

10. I thought Obama made that

commitment back in April.:shrug:

[Ethelk2044]

12. He kept his word. He did not go negative on anyone. He just responded

There is a difference.

[liberalnurse]

15. None of the Democratic Candidates have actually gone

for the juggler with attacks. What I see them doing is keeping their names out in the media. The little digs really do help evoke donations too!

[polichick]

16. Yeah, they're playing the media...

...and the media's playing us ~ politics as usual.

[TeamJordan23]

14. Differences in policies are not negative campaigning. nm

[emilyg]

21. Of course not.

[illinoisprogressive]

17. He has said if attacked he would hit back hard. but, would not attack unless.

[Imagevision]

24. A pledge to avoid negative campaigning? - kidding? this is what America is all about, (doncha know?)

keep the gloves off, I can determine the candidate easier, let's see how they'll handle the outside crowd?

[Kingstree]

26. Obama's just doing what is human nature

to attack back and defend. He did not start this, she purposely did. His values and agenda is not being compromised at all.

[IndianaGreen]

28. If such a pledge existed, Hil broke it when she called Obama naive and reckless

It so happens that Hillarycamp's internal polling shows that the public agrees with Obama, and that they see Hillary as the same old shit inside a new package.

[Dawgs]

30. Why not include Edwards or Kucinich?

They've been just as negative.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. They aren't benefitting from a perception of being "above" such attacks like Obama nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. You decide. Here is what Obama said when he launched his exploratory committee

== The freshman Democratic senator from Illinois said the past six years had left the country in a precarious place and he promoted himself as the standard-bearer for “a new kind of politics.”

“Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way,” Obama said in a video posted on his Web site. “Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first.”==

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070117/news_1n17obama.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. It depends on what the meaning of "pledge" is

Did he violate any literal pledge? No. Did he violate the spirit of what he claims to be for? Perhaps. It is debatable. This isn't the real issue, though, in my view. The broader issue here is that Obama has benefited politically from a perception of being "above" such negative attacks (let's be honest. How is calling a Democratic rival *-Cheney-lite not an attack?). How much of a role BO himself had in creating this perception, how much the media helped create can be debated. The bottom line, though, is that part of Obama's appeal is that he is viewed as 'above" negative attacks and a "different kind of politician." This brings us to the new line of attack Team Clinton is opening on Obama (with the original line of attack being the "he is inexperienced" one). They are using this to paint Obama as just another regular politician. Why? Because this will cause some of those people who are supporting him because they believe--or hope--he is "above" such things to change their minds toward him if he is seen as a run-of-the-mill politician in this respect. I have said Obama risked losing the sheen of his "new kind of politics" image from the beginning of his dust up, while maintaining he had no choice but to fight back given HRC's expanding lead in the polls (plus the fact that HRC began the cycle of attacks). I think, on balance, Obama will come out of this with reduce support--and the polls from the past week suggest this is what has happened.

Obama, more so than any other Democratic candidate, is a brand (although every politician is a brand to a degree). His top strategist has even spoken of the campaign putting an emphasis on Obama's biography and personality rather than issues. Remember, he amazingly was in the mid-20's in the polls before anyone had any idea what he intended to do as president (similar to F. Thompson on the Republican side in this respect). This was no fluke. It was because of what Obama represented. One of things that he represented to people was a change from the politics of negative attacks.

Obama's "unity" theme also took an indirect, albeit small hit in this. One of the prerequisites to achieving a semblance of
"unity" is moving beyond petty bickering and negative attacks. After all, you can't call someone names and then seriously expect to work together with them on a controversial issue. On a subliminal level I think people will recognize this and this will also hurt the Obama brand.

[OHdem10]

36. They cannot run an absolutely positive campaign--

Politics requires that one of them prove their strength.

This includes taking one out. I am not trying to throw
coldwater. Idealism is beautiful but win campaigns it does not.

There is a reason why Republicans have won for the past
years. Do I think they get too dirty? Yes

I believe there are boundaries but Cumbahaya is not a winner.

HRC and Obama's Dust-up was just that--a dustup. There is
nothing wrong with it.

They had better get some practice. Guilliani is not going
to be one bit restraine

The Public needs Compare and Contrast.