A blogger has done an interesting study of the negativity of the speeches of Obama and Palin. Of course, the media has played up that Palin was very negative. Although, at the time of the Obama speech I know that more than a few commentators remarked how unusually negative Obama was. This blogger cites twice as many negative Obama points as Palin.
So the analysis on Obama's negative points.
The analysis on Palin's negative points.
And yes, this is a conservative writing this. I linked to this because of the comment someone made in my other post about viewers not being the end all, depending on what they see when they tune in.
An analysis of McCain would need two separate attacks on Dems from attacks on his own party. :)
Critiquing policy is not the same as being negative. What that commenter classifies as "funnier and better written" was hollow vitriole.
If I tell you that tasering youth is not a good strategy to build community confidence in the police, that's not the same thing as me telling you that law enforcement are parasitic leeches with no moral center or element to their actions.
The first is a constructive critique that might be right or wrong. The second is a fabricated attack to merely level the group of people you are targeting.
Sarah Palin employed the second tactic; Obama the first. The second is only "funny" if you are rooting for victory, not for social improvement. The second tactic is what has given us this current abrasive political climate and what will ultimately destroy our empire if we allow it to fester.
This thread is an important one and I appreciate you for adding it. Obviously we are likely to disagree. But I would argue that what you have put your finger on is not only a reason to vote for Obama, but the strongest evidence of what a vote for McCain/Palin really signifies.