Are you kidding? We love negativity

The New York Times edit board claims:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

Are voters really getting “tired of it”? How would the NYT editorial board know? Common sense and cable ratings tell us (though they may not admit it) voters love a mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled political race. I’ve never spoken to as many civilians about politics as I have since this race began to get nasty. Though I wouldn’t call the contest exceptionally “mean.” It’s just unusual. And the negativity — or “distractions,” as Obama likes to call them — are quite often a handy way to learn useful tidbits about a candidate which would otherwise be ignored. Those things may seem “vacuous” to some. To other, clingy types, those negative revelations could be a deal breaker.

Politically, “negativity” is a winner. Hillary just took Pennsylvania – and Ohio and Texas. Her so-called negativity has done nothing but help her survive in this race, if only for a couple of more weeks.

The NYT board is grousing because this thing is dragging on and has the potential to hurt the Democrats in the general election. That concern is overblown. But “demeaning”? A genuine primary race only enhances the political process, it doesn’t demean it. And when the combatants have so little to quarrel about on policy matters, what else are they going to do?