I don't want Obama going nuclear negative

There's a case to be made why Obama should go negative in the coming weeks. It's effective (like it or not), and he'll have to do it in the general, directly or by proxy.

But I want him to resist that call.

Part of the problem going negative in a seriously contested primary is that when it's all over, you've got to enthusiastically woo the losing candidate's supporters back to you.

Most people don't read blogs, so what Clinton supporters see as bashing of them (when it's really criticism of their candidate of her tactics) on this forum won't really influence the vast majority of Clinton voters.

So Obama is making it easier for Clinton supporters to come to him, should she (in all likelihood) lose the race for the nomination. More importantly, his refusal to go strongly negative makes it easier for his supporters to go to her in the very unlikely event that she pulls off a comeback win.

Clinton, on the other hand, is using strategies that are like a poison pill. Her tactics may have netted her a few points in the polling yesterday, but that's short-term gain only. Should she win this thing, she's made it hard for Obama supporters to work for her in the general. More importantly, she's poisoning Obama in the minds of her supporters - who will harbor lingering doubts about Obama from scandals and smears the Clinton has either made or facilitated.

We've seen the math. It is next to impossible for Clinton to make up the delegate deficit, and even the supers are moving Obama's way, if Tom Brokaw's report is to be believed. Obama must do everything he can to make himself attractive to Clinton's supporters in the general, because he's going to need them.

First time diarist, so be gentle!

UPDATE: This was the thought process that led me to write this diary: How many Obama supporters have responded to each Clinton dirty trick with a variation of "this makes it less likely for me to vote for her in the general, if she should get the nod"? Now the math is on Obama's side. Do we want people who voted for Clinton saying the same thing about Obama? I also changed the title to reflect the difference in usage of "negative", where some mean it as criticism of one's opponent, where I'm talking about the smear tactics.