As a political strategy, which is more important ?

[kentuck]

To attack your opponent or to give your positive positions on the issues? Is it more effective to criticize your opponent and point out the blunders and errors, even if in an uncivil manner, than say, for example, to give your ideas on healthcare reform, tax policies, education policies, etc? It may sound more "important" to explain your ideas on how to make this a better nation, but it is more "effective", in my opinion, to attack your opponent and keep him on the defensive wherever possible.

This is especially true if your opponent uses this strategy at all times. You cannot compete with such an opponent by offering positive ideas for problems. You will lose. Ideally, we could have a nation that was "united, not divided" and we could discuss the issues in a rational and respectful manner. However, with the attack dogs 'neo-cons' now in power, that is not possible to do. I think this is a truth that many in our Party needs to understand.

[MI Cherie]

1. To appreciate the positive ...

... one must accept the negative.

[marshmellow]

2. A two track approach.

The candidate should remain all positive and at best somewhat puzzled by his opponents position. But the special interest groups and henchmen surrounding the candidate should be balls to the wall aggressive. Never let up, do or die, the sky is falling.