I thought I'd get this thread going in response to some comments in another thread I made recently. Is it really "smear campaigning" to point out a political candidate's stance on a given issue? In politics, when a bill has extra laws or stipulations attached to it or included in the text it's considered an "earmark". Also, on the issue of smear campaigning. Elections are not won by showing how much better one candidate is than the other. Elections are won by picking the best of the worst. I think when voting for a candidate you have to pay attention to all of their stances, not just the ones you agree with. If their stance on certain issues is something you are strongly against or against at all, I think you need to come to terms with that stance before voting for said candidate. If you vote for somebody and disagree with them on a major issue, by voting for them you are still supporting that issue whether you agree with it or not. You aren't ever going to find a perfect candidate that you can agree with 100% of the time, but by voting for somebody you are essentially saying that you will tolerate their stances. It all comes down to which stances you are willing to tolerate over others. It's more than just how many issues you agree with or disagree with. I think that certain issues have more weight for different people. Can we agree there?