Reply #12: History Has Shown That McCain Is Vulnerable To A Smear Campaign [View All]

This is why I pose the question of principle versus power. Democratics desparately want to win the 2008 election. However, at what cost? At what point, does winning at all cost deprive of us of any moral high ground?

The GOP and Karl Rove ran a very effective smear campaign against John McCain in 2000. Hillary Clinton can repeat that with gusto, since it would likely resonate with working class whites like it did among voters in the South Carolina primary.

Barack Obama, of course, is really not in an ideal position to start a whisper campaign that John McCain's adopted daughter is really his illegitimate black child. Likewise, Hillary will be questioned about Bill's adultery, which gives Hillary a perfect opening to bring up John McCain's actual history as an adulterer. Hillary can say: "Well, at least Bill did not abandon me like John McCain after I was disfigured to marry some pretty heiress." Also, given the Manchurian rumors that were started regarding Obama, Barack Obama can't really question McCain's fitness.

The fact of the matter is that history has shown that John McCain can be smeared, and that such smears do resonate well with working class whites.

Now, at what cost do you want to win? In some other posts, many DU'rs excuse this type of conduct as "Its Just Politics," so there is a segment of DU'rs who are willing to do whatever it takes to win back the Whitehouse, and I do admit that Hillary is more likely than Barack to fight, and do whatever it takes to win the Whitehouse.

Hillary versus McCain could be one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent memory, but I am confident that Hillary can give as well as she gets. So, I am somewhat torn. Principle versus Power.