"Going Negative" vs Logic

What's all this I hear about "going negative" in campaigning?

For one thing, this accusation is ambiguous as hell...or more so -- since "hell" isn't all that ambiguous!

Could it mean one side trying to point out the flaws and weaknesses in the positions of its opponent? If so, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR!

* What's at issue is whether or not the allegations are true, false or perhaps deceptive in one way or another. Most often the third option comes into play -- there's hardly one political ad that's not decptive -- not now...not ever!!

Or, could it mean one side trying to point out the flaws and weakenesses of the PERSONS VOICING the positions of it's opponent? If so, that's a logical fallacy, and it comes in at least two different flavors, and all flavors involve attacking the person making the argument -- not the argument itself.

One's called argumentum ad hominem abusive -and that's when the attack attempts to sully the character of the person making the argument. But, no matter what the character of the person making the case, the "making of the case" is what's at issue. "Bad" people can make "good" arguments, and vice-versa.

* So what if Obama or McCain "palled around" with nefarious people. How does that affect their position on the economic crisis we're in today??

The other's called argumentum ad hominem circumstantial - and that's when the attack attempts to point out that the person making the argument personally benefits if the argument is accepted. But so what? Is it necessary for a good argument to harm the person making it? Huh??

* So what if Obama or McCain would get tax benefits from their proposed tax schemes? How does that affect the legitimacy of their schemes??

In both cases...the attacks are irrelevant.