I don’t really see it as “negative” either. I didn’t describe it as such in the post but it was adjacent to the “going negative” link so that’s my fault for not being clear. The ad was heavy handed and played on people’s fears (which is never the most noble of tactics) but I didn’t find it negative in what is normally meant by negative advertising.

I thought it was good because It focused attention on the unknowns of an Obama presidency. It reinforced the point that a Clinton presidency is familiar, and an Obama presidency is a cipher - fundamentally unknowable. I just do not see that as negative. It is factual. As I said in another comment here - a Clinton presidency is a known quantity, and an Obama presidency is a crapshoot. You can’t learn enough to overcome that fact, you can only learn enough to ignore it.

Speaking only for myself, I would feel a lot more comfortable with an Obama presidency after four or eight years of seasoning as vice-president in a Clinton administration.