ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Compare and contrast.

That’s a time-honored approach in writing, as well as in politics.

The latest example is the flier former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann sent out comparing and contrasting himself with former Congressman Neil Abercrombie, his rival in the Democratic primary for governor.

Politics is a game of hardball. Always has been. It’s basically one candidate trying to tell you that he’s better than the other candidate. Negative campaigning is an aspect of that. I think it’s safe to say that most, if not all, citizens don’t really enjoy negative campaigning. What we would rather see is candidates debating the issues that really matter.

Hannemann’s flier was a walk on the negative side. He subtly — by publishing the full names of their wives — and not so subtly — by picking winning a beard contest as an example of recognition — belittled his opponent. There was a lively discussion about it Tuesday, and while some steadfast Hannemann supporters were defending the flier, there were many Civil Beat members who were turned off by it.

We, as citizens, are partly responsible for this kind of politics. Why? Because it works. Candidates engage in this type of campaigning because it gets them elected. And we are the ones who elect them, despite our professed disdain for these types of tactics.

As I mentioned in an article on the site the other day, Civil Beat isn’t endorsing candidates because we don’t believe it’s our place to tell you whom to vote for. Everyone is different and each person has his or her own beliefs. If being local is the most important criterion for you, then vote for the “local” candidate. If it’s important to you that a candidate is married to someone Japanese, then by all means vote for the candidate with the Japanese spouse. Or maybe your vote turns on which school a candidate attended. It’s your right to base your decision on whatever is important to you.

That being said, our belief is that we are better served as a state when people focus on candidates’ stance on issues and their record of accomplishment.

Clearly, these are two accomplished men running for the dominant party’s nomination. And clearly they both know and love this place — and care deeply about its future. But what would be more valuable would be an effort by both candidates, and all candidates for that matter, to get into the nitty gritty of the issues facing the state and how what they’ve done in the past has prepared them specifically to address the challenges ahead.

More important, it’s our responsibility as citizens to be informed and not allow ourselves to fall victim to campaign tactics that are designed solely to win a contest. Remember, we’re trying to elect the best leader, not the best campaign strategist or tactician.

I think we’re all capable enough to make that distinction — no matter what the candidates might do.