Campaign Attacks -- Mud or Milquetoast?

Has the politics of personal destruction returned? Did it ever go away? Has it ever stopped, even for a little while, in the history of this country? Yes, no and no. This BBC article from 2004 looks at the long history of mudslinging in American presidential politics. Like most political campaigns for high (or low) office, especially the long ordeal that has become the presidential process, the candidates start off very polite, then gradually the tension builds and the next thing you know, it gets ugly.

Tension between the two Democratic front runners escalated steadily in recent months, making it increasingly difficult to envision the two teaming up for a joint ticket after the nomination is secured. The most recent episode was spurred by a column by Robert Novak, which began, "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it."Ignoring Novak's credibility issues, Senator Obama responded with a statement challenging Senator Clinton to "either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none."

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney denounced phone calls to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that ask a series of derisive questions about Romney's faith and political stance(s) on abortion as an un-American anti-religious attack.

Who's the culprit? We may find out because the state of New Hampshire opened an investigation into the calls. A blogger at Red State has an interesting theory.

This escalation of mudslinging is only the beginning. I could not agree more with John Edwards, who has also been accused of sliming Clinton. On Face the Nation Sunday, Edwards warned that "If anybody, including Sen. Clinton, thinks this is mudslinging, this is milquetoast, compared to what we're going to see next fall."