We are, all of us, going to vote for the Democratic candidate in November 2016. But, until we know who that is, let's take our lead from Bernie Sanders, whether or not we support his candidacy or program, and decline to go negative. It's not too hard to compare and contrast candidates without impugning them. Facts alone almost always suffice to make a good argument. Take it from an old trial lawyer.
Example: Hillary Clinton announces that her participation in the Keystone XL pipeline project while Secretary of State inhibits her from commenting on the proper outcome while that same process is still pending before the same President whom she served. She specifically said we have to elect her President to find out where she stands on Keystone XL.
Bernie Sanders has a different position, and would stop Keystone XL in its tracks if he had the power. Someone with interest in the Keystone XL issue needs to know nothing more than these facts to decide between the candidates. To someone disinterested, no honest argument makes a difference because the issue doesn't matter to that voter. Ether way, going negative serves no purpose.
Just as President Obama and Secretary Clinton came to make common ground after the 2008 primaries, so must it be after this year's party trial heats.
The Republicritters occupying the GOP Presidential Clown Stretch Limo and their countless minions in media, social media, etc., may be relied upon to vet both real and imagined faults of any Democrat who might ever contend for and/or win our Presidential nomination, even if we nominated Jesus Mahatma Buddha. They will never need any help from us to tear down our people.
T he practice of politics evolves. Going negative is so 2000. When the chips are down, we're all going to be in this together.
Let's keep it civil out there.