Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I have done it. But it's rarely helpful. And when the big names do it, it contributes to the bitter partisan divide that envelops Washington. I am talking about mocking or belittling the other side, and using inaccurate language to describe their positions.

Let me give some examples from both sides.

Clinton and/or Obama and/or surrogates have jumped all over McCain for "wanting to fight in Iraq for 100 years" and "McCain's 100 year war" and other such nonsense. Let's look at a transcript of what McCain said in that town hall meeting:

**

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

**

Certain democrats have unfairly mischaracterized that exchange repeatedly. We can have a thoughtful, rational debate over how long we should be in Iraq, but not if the dems start by saying, "McCain, you want a 100-year war."

Let's look at some recent quotes from the other side of the aisle:

"Perhaps I am just a cynical old war hawk but I don't see "sitting in a circle holding hands with bin Laden and other Islamic fascists" and talking about "hope" as a particularly viable foreign policy."
--Anonymous Hawk

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding surrender to terror."
--Mitt Romney

Like the AH, Mitt Romney is an intelligent, decent fellow with integrity. But they both go overboard with their anti-democratic rhetoric. To imply that Clinton or Obama would do any of the above does not create an environment for thoughtful debate.

Instead of saying, "I strongly disagree with Obama's Iraq strategy because I believe what he plans to do will make the US look weak in the eyes of terrorists and could result in future attacks," folks like Romney and the AH use incendiary language like "surrender to terror" and "sit in a circle holding hands with bin Laden."

If more rational language is used, then we can have a thoughtful debate and discuss the other side of the coin--that our actions in Iraq since 2003 (and in 2010 if we stay there) may also result in future terror attacks on the US due to our activities and/or presence in Iraq leading to increased terrorist recruitment.

To the AH, I strongly recommend going to Obama's website and reading the foreign policy section. He explains what his foreign policy will be and shockingly, it does not include holding hands with bin Laden or waving the white flag of surrender. Seriously, it can be helpful to read what the candidates actually have to say about the issues rather than hear the other side's interpretation of the candidate's positions.