Another Reader Responds to TPM Reader CN ...

I think it's a mistake to choose the meanest junkyard dog in this fight - the response of a party traumatized by its losses. George W. Bush didn't beat Al Gore by slamming him in the debates, or by flinging opposition research in his teeth. He didn't defeat John Kerry by relentlessly attacking him when they met on stage. Instead, he struck a pose of good-natured calm. It allowed him to seem a reasonable and ordinary fellow, and made Gore and Kerry look pedantic, arch, and overwrought. Most pundits felt that Gore and Kerry won their debates on the merits, but it was indisputable that they failed to connect with the electorate on a gut level. And that cost them. We need a candidate who runs a campaign that's capable of giving as good as it gets, or of hitting back harder. But we also need a candidate who's capable of appealing to voters, of inspiring their trust and confidence, and of connecting with independents and moderate Republicans. That was the Bush formula - a likeable candidate who mouthed centrist mantras, and an unbelievably nasty, no-holds-barred campaign operation. It's an open question whether Obama's campaign can get down in the slime with the Clintons, and win. But Hillary's evident glee in throwing elbows is a big part of what drives her negatives. Obama's performance in the debates thus far, defending himself without seeming nasty or spiteful, is precisely what he'll need to win in November. Remember, debates aren't for pundits, they're for undecided voters. And time and again, those voters are repelled by strong attacks, however accurate, and drawn to the candidate who seems to rise above them.