Except game theory suggests that you have to fight back. If one side goes negative and the other does not, then it strongly benefits the one that did. "Looking foolish" only works if all voters are high-information voters, which they are not. I guess you could just suggest that he should just lose, but that's kind of silly.
Not at all. You can respond, but doing so in kind is not necessarily the answer. For example, you wouldn't suggest that in 2000 McCain should have suddenly said 'Bush has a black lovechild.'
Of course not - but no one has done that here either. Each has picked negative aspects of their own. Did Obama repeat an exact attack that McCain used (or vice-versa)?
On the bbs, yes - several people have made low end attacks on McCain, and also I'm sure on Obama. My point is that if one or another makes an ad/attack based on untruths rather than on opinion, that ad/attack should not be mimic'd, especially by those deploring the tactic. Also, it seems that part of Obama's appeal has been to resist going negative. If that's contributed to his success so far, it flies in the face of the opinion that he must respond with negative campaigning against McCain.
