The mole has scored another coup, getting the Democrats to talking about Bush's grandfather.
This past year has been a revelation for me. Democrats are always whining about negative campaigns and always saying how the voters don't like them. But I always thought they were caricaturing the idea of a negative campaign, implying that the attacks are always trivial, that they are only designed to hurt the opponent's reputation but have no relevance to his abilities to carry out the duties of the office he is running for.
I never think of that when I think of negative campaigning. I think of a candidate who knows something that does make his opponent less qualified for the office he seeks. How can it be bad to let the voters know about this? I even consider it a service to the community.
But now I see where I was wrong. This is another example of leftist projection. The problem is that leftists can't seem to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant attacks. That's why they are always making irrelevant attacks and why the voters turn against them. They are right that negative campaigns are unprincipled and counterproductive, but only when you are talking about a leftist-style negative campaign.