The Richard Moore and Barack Obama campaigns have more in common that just that Moore endorsed Obama. Both seem to be debating the same question: Attack her?

Obama’s debate is more open in the national media. His campaign clearly was thrown off balance by Clinton’s “kitchen sink” attacks. Now they’re trying to decide whether – and how – to hit back without losing Obama’s halo.

Moore’s debate – assuming there is one – is out of sight. But it is a reasonable inference. He has been off the air recently, while Perdue is on heavy. Public polls have shown him falling behind her 52-25. If Moore’s campaign isn’t considering attacking her, it should be.

The answer is the same for both campaigns: Yes and yes. You cannot win in politics without drawing a sharp contrast with your opponent.

Obama can do it in a way that keeps his new-politics image. That’s not hard.

Moore doesn’t have to worry about that. He never positioned himself as above politics-as-usual.

What normally cripples campaigns – especially first-time candidates – is the internal debate. The campaign pros want the candidate to go negative. Typically, his or her spouse, family, friends, law or business partners, etc. object.

They’ll say: “Voters don’t like negative ads.”

Wrong. Voters SAY they don’t like negative ads. But they remember every one of them.

These debates rarely go on when the candidate has run and lost before. One time is enough to cure them of cold feet.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.