There is negativity and then there is "negativity"

Ambers posts some figures from the Ridiculously Long Initialism Group (RLIG) and the Wisconsin Advertising Project. Key line:

77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain

Uh-huh...of course the Obama campaign has said more "negative" things compared to McCain. They are running against the last 8 years of failure, whereas McCain would have us believe the status quo is relatively A-okay and just needs a maverick personality to name a few names and veto a few bills...as opposed to a party switch that would really shake up the Executive branch.

I'll wager that historically it's been perfectly normal for the opposition to take up a "negative" tone against the incumbent party.

And this time around it's not only justified, I'd say it's expected and necessary. I don't think there's any doubt that George W. Bush has been the worst president in this country's history in the sense that his administration has done the most harm to our standing both internationally, economically, as well as institutionally. Yet Republicans like McCain still support him.

To my eye Obama's anti-Republican negativity is well justified, and very different from the baseless personal attacks, gross distortions, and general dishonesty and lies the McCain campaign has been trying to distract from the issues with.

I'm sure Ambers realizes this and suppose he had it in mind when he quoted the word "negative", but I felt it worth expounding.