So are Kerry-Edwards going the "nothing but optimism" route?

[ALago1]

I was being a bona fide C=Span junkie yesterday, watching coverage of recent campaign appearances by Kerry and Edwards as well as Bush.

I was pretty impressed at our side and surprised at the same time; there was nothing but sunny optimism coming from both men, which is a stark contrast between Bush and Cheney and their negative assault on the ticket right now. Perhaps the funniest was a Bush ad implying that Kerry was in favor of beating and murdering pregnant women because he voted against the so called "Laci Peterson Law". It was ridiculous.

I'm thinking if the whole campaign is run in an optimistic manner by K/E, it may be pretty effective and make Bush/Cheney look stupid.

On the other hand, a part of me wants them to play hardball with the incompetent pair, pointing out all their failures and lies to the public.

Do you think just staying optimistic and refusing to go negative will be effective enough? I'm not altogether sure because the Bush crew are a pack of ruthless thugs.

[aden_nak]

1. I don't see why they must choose one or the other.

Especially when most of what is negative about Bush and Cheney comes straight from their own mouths. I believe they can have an optimistic outlook on American while, at the same time, saying, "Bush and Cheney ARE the doom and gloom of American politics." They'll be sunshine and roses around each other, but believe you me, Edwards is going to go for the jugular on Cheney.

[mzmolly]

2. I think it's a good strategy. Especially given the contrast, and the 527

groups that can be effective in telling the truth in a manner they see fit.

[Sandpiper]

3. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar

In 1992, Bush said vote for me because Clinton sucks.

Clinton said, vote for me because I have better ideas.

And we all know how that one turned out.

[trotsky]

4. Negative advertising

It's such a paradox. Poll after poll shows that the public HATES it, yet poll after poll shows that it is extremely effective.

Maybe they can find a way to inject a little more criticism without going "negative," but overall to be tied or even a little ahead at this point in the game WITHOUT having to go negative, and enduring all of Bush's attacks, seems to be a good sign.

[Darkamber]

5. Don't worry they can be tough when they need to...

Bush had been trying to paint Kerry as the Pessimist and himself and the sunshine optimist. Now they can't use that with Edwards on the ticket. They have instead turned to the old standard, "They are both left of Ted Kennedy". Shock Horror headlines. It terrifies their back base to Bush tightly and lock step with him.

As for Edwards, I'll leave you with this quote from an attorney who faced him in the courtrooms many times...

Over the years, Edwards's courtroom opponents came to regard him with ungrudging awe. "He didn't have any weaknesses," says James Cooney, who faced him in about a dozen cases. "He was never underhanded. If I was in a trial with John Edwards and I ever had to pull a knife out of my back, it was only because he shoved it through my chest." In cross-examinations, Edwards's "style was gentle," says Cooney. "He never yelled at a witness. He didn't try to physically dominate a witness—when he got done, when the witnesses stood up, all their clothes fell off."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411915/site/newsweek/

Don't worry...they can attack when the time is right, but they don't need to attack now. There's time for that...later when it counts.