Should Obama play dirty?

More often than not, I am disappointed in Democrats for one main reason: they refuse to get down and dirty in election battles. Outrage and finger-pointing aplenty comes from within the party about Karl Rove and his divisive politics, or about the Swift Boat Veterans, or the Willie Horton blame game. Democrats always see what is done to them as being unfair or mean-spirited.

Well, of course it's unfair! It's politics! And of course it's mean. We are talking about two very large groups of Americans who are fighting for the reigns of the most powerful country on earth.

I read more than my fair share of blogs and comments on major news websites (probably more than I ought to), and I have noticed many self-proclaimed independents already bashing Obama for going negative.

Objectively speaking, he has yet to go negative. McCain has lied about Obama's tax policies, falsely tied him to rich celebrities, and pegged him as arrogant and elitist. And we aren't talking about misleading little nuances, we are talking about outright lies. And Obama's most aggressive or controversial attack yet was based on an actual McCain quote (he forgot how many houses he owns).

Can Obama afford to go negative? Absolutely. It may be the only thing that saves him. And to pretend to take the high road and not respond to attacks cost Carter in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004, and countless other state and local races for Democrats throughout history.

Suck it up, Obama. In politics-- at least recently-- the victory goes to he who took the low road.