Sen. Hillary Clinton will soon make a decision about the direction of her campaign in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Jan. 26. Her options are either to play nice and perhaps lose, or to go on the attack and win. In a tight race against Sen. Barack Obama, Senator Clinton may choose the latter. Her recent remarks about the words and actions of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. were probably a trial balloon to gauge the impact of going negative. But in so doing, she could alienate several major Democratic constituencies — African-Americans and youth — perhaps for a generation to come.

Until her poor performance in Iowa, Clinton had been banking on South Carolina votes. Bill Clinton had proven his “comeback kid” status in 1992 by winning South Carolina and other states, mostly due to African-American support. But now, Clinton’s African-American “constituency” in the South has someplace else to go: to a truly viable black candidate. Hence the strategy behind carefully crafted Bill and Hillary statements that 1) the campaign would not go negative in the Granite State and 2) the press was being too easy on Senator Obama. Notice was given, it seemed: If only slightly veiled critiques of the junior senator from Illinois don’t do the job, we will unleash old-fashioned attack ads.

The problem is that the lessons of Clinton’s New Hampshire strategy are mixed. Besides the semi-negativity, she also showed a very human face. Which tactic was more influential? Or was the combination of both the critical factor? If she went on the attack, Clinton would be breaking with Democratic presidential politics of the past — to treat African-American candidates gently and avoid alienating black voters.

Technology is another liability. In old-style negative campaigning you could localise your stabs by, for example, running attack ads in one district or sending out smearing mailers to certain groups. But with the advent of blogs and YouTube, all politics is global. What might work in rural South Carolina might be embarrassing when watched online in Santa Barbara, Calif. And, of course, when you sling mud there is a backlash. An attack-dog stance will hardly raise her own approval rating for the general election.

Entrance polling, anecdotal evidence from voter interviews and simple observation of rallies suggest that many Obama voters are truly excited about him. Even more remarkable, Obama won 57 per cent of the vote; Edwards, 14 per cent; and Clinton just 11 per cent. In short, Obama is a “first love” for many young, potential new Democrats, and they are the future of the party. What would happen if they walked away in disgust from their initial engagement with politics? Right now there is a struggle in the Clinton campaign about what New Hampshire meant. Her choice, to go positive or negative, or both, may determine the fate

of her campaign. But te fallout could also affect the makeup of the Democratic Party for a generation to come. — The Christian Science Monitor