Nastiness: Campaigns and Supporters
Or: Drum and Atrios Miss the Mark
And: Obama's Guiding Idea

Here.

I don't really read Atrios much anymore, but I think Drum is still just about the best big political blogger around. But both miss the mark here. The supporters have gone more ballistic than the official core of the campaigns, but there's no doubt that the core of the Clinton campaign has gotten nasty. So any hopes that it was just the supporters are out the window, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately, what's going on just confirms what I take to be one of Obama's core ideas: that unfair and nasty attacks reverberate and amplify in the echo chamber, and that's one of the most important reasons to avoid them. Passions run high, and people are primed for antagonistic action.

Think of it this way: suppose you and your brother have had many vitriolic disagreements in the past, and a new opportunity for conflict arises. Now, you can go one of two ways: you can be especially careful to be honest, fair and unaggressive, or you can give in to the urge to play fast and loose with the facts, ridicule, exaggerate and spin everything in your favor. Now, even aside from whatever general moral obligations you have to act in the latter way, this is your brother, man. You love him and have special obligations to him and to your family, in particular to avoid gratuitous conflict. The former route is the straight and narrow, the way of reason, peace and progress. The latter way is the route of self-indulgence and temporary catharsis at the price of long-term irrationality and conflict. Go ye the former way, I beseech thee! Be ye not a hole of the ass, but seeketh ye the path of excellent coolness.

None of this in any way suggests that the campaigns should avoid fair and reasonable criticism of each other. That's the stuff of healthy democracy. But the lies and vitriol gain nothing but short-term political advantage at the expense of the long-term health of the body politic.