About a month ago, I had a friend come up to me and ask me what the difference was between “pledged delegates” and “super-delegates.” More than being flattered that she had come to me to explain this confusing part of politics, I was shocked. For this wasn’t just any old friend.

This was a friend who had, in the past, repeatedly professed her disdain towards politics, and had given me all kinds of grief for being what she coined, “a political NERD.”

When she, of all people, was asking me with complete sincerity to explain parts of the election process, I knew this political year was different.

I think it’s safe to say that this year has proven to expand political interest to a new scope of people, whether it is my college-aged friend, or a senior citizen who stopped voting years ago, as had some of the older men I talked to at the Mercer Island caucuses this year in Washington.

The increase in political interest is new, exciting and makes for a particularly interesting election year. The dirty campaigning that all the candidates, whether they admit it or not, have begun to somewhat embrace, however, puts this election year on par with all past elections.

In the game of politics, you aren’t going to find many politicians unwilling to take a few “below-the-belt” jabs at their rivals. Politicians will be politicians.

What constitutes “negative campaigning”? Books abound on the subject, including Going Dirty by David Mark, which defines negative campaigning as follows:

“What constitutes negative campaigning is usually a matter of perspective; tactics that to one voter seem misleading, mean-spirited, and immoral can impart to another important and relevant information about how the candidate would perform under the pressures of public office.”

So when, in American politics, can we first look back to see examples of dirty politics?

There are numerous disputed answers, but many posts from individuals point to the year 1799, and Thomas Jefferson’s “undermining” of John Adams. As one blogger writes:

“In America, you can look to Thomas Jefferson who began a whispering campaign against John Adams. The year was 1799, I think. Oddly, the 2nd place finisher won the Vice-presidency. Under Washington, Adams was VP and performed the job with dignity and in support of Washington. Jefferson as VP undercut Adams at every turn.”

Throughout the years following, not much has changed, and many credit Pres. Richard Nixon for really upping the ante of dirty campaigning.

In his bid for senator of California in 1950, Nixon aggressively painted rival Helen Gahagan Douglas as a Communist, and went on to win the election. As this excellent article on negative campaigning explains:

“Nixon won the Senate seat because he played to fear just as the nation was just descending into the “Red scare” phase — McCarthyism, blacklisting and the House Un-American Activities Committee. Anything that looked “pink” was suspect. (Douglas, for her part, did manage to stick Nixon with a most apt nickname, “Tricky Dick,” one he lived up to his entire political career.)”

In 2004, President Bush took many jabs at Democratic candidate John Kerry for his wavering stance on a plethora of issues. In particular, a damning ad was taken out against Kerry by the “Swift Boat Veterans” which questioned Kerry’s military service record.

This election year, Sen. Clinton arguably took the first step towards aggressive negative campaigning. While Obama spoke across the country praising the need for “hope” and “change”, Clinton went on the prowl, with attacks on Obama’s lack of experience. Don’t get me wrong; Obama threw a few punches, notably painting Clinton as a polarizing figure. GOP nominee John McCain took some hits but got his fair share of negative comments displayed in media outlets across the world as well.

For a while, however, the negative campaigning seemed to be overwhelmed by positive stories of increased turnout and participation.

How fast things can change in such short time.

Coming off 11-straight losses, the Clinton campaign launched a multi-faceted attack on Sen. Obama in the wake of the March 4th primaries, that questioned everything from his relationship with former real-estate developer Tony Rezko, to questionable comments Obama’s camp made about NAFTA to Canadian officials. And lets not forget the now infamous “3am” ad, aggressively portraying Obama as a candidate simply not ready to lead a country with national security threats.

Did Clinton’s turn to the negative contribute to her crucial wins in Ohio and Texas? Richard Larson, writer for the Ventura County Star, seems to believe so:

“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s strategy of turning negative helped her win last week’s primaries in Texas and Ohio. Exit polls suggest her bringing up Barack Obama’s relationship with a disgraced supporter, his supposed waffling on changing the North American Free Trade Agreement and his being too youthful to confront a world crisis caused many voters to switch in the last few days before the primaries.”

As much as I wish I could disagree, I can’t say that I do. For here in lies the point of negative campaigning: it scares voters, and makes them look at their decisions and think, “Wait…is this the type of candidate I REALLY want as my president?”

Obama’s campaign has begun to increasingly foray into the negative politics game, having aggressively questioned Clinton’s character.

At Obama’s San Antonio rally on March. 4th, Chief Obama Strategist David Axelrod stingingly stated, “Sen. Obama is profitable from going against a candidate like Sen. Clinton.” If that isn’t a jab at Clinton’s character, I’m not sure what is.

Concurrently, Sen. Obama has been increasingly questioning Clinton’s refusal to release past tax records, painting her as untrustworthy. One paid Obama staffer went so far as to publicly denounce Clinton as “a monster.” However, this staffer was forced to resign shortly thereafter.

With the Democratic nomination looking increasingly deadlocked, one can only guess what slander and dirt both the Clinton and Obama camps will produce in the upcoming weeks, and even months.

Increased turnout, fervent, passionate supporters, and astonishing interest.

That’s what makes this election different from all the others.

Negative campaigns, dirty politics, and increased sparring among candidates.

That’s what makes this election exactly the same.