Personal versus Political

It is readily apparent to anyone who reads, studies or even dabbles in politics that there is no shortage of mudslinging.  It is a disturbing trend that the mudslinging is no longer reserved for those running for or holding office but it is more and more common to see people being personally attacked for their beliefs.  This is a method that tends to be successful in many instances but it is a vile thing to do.
To better state my position I should explain that there is a difference between disagreeing with, working against and disputing ideas and policies and attacking someone on a personal level.  I can disagree with a policy, idea, program or platform and fight dilligently to defeat it without disliking or becoming disagreeable to the person who is promoting them. 
One of the grand ideals that the Founders put forth was that we, as a people, could disagree and yet still be civil and work out our differences.  The idea that it is ok to attack a persons character as a way to prove your political position is a disgusting, vile, and cowardly way to approach a discussion of policy. 
The idea is what should be debated.  The character of the person making the argument has no bearing on the validity of the argument. 
The old saying of a clock being right twice a day is an excellent example.  Twice a day that clock has the correct time, no matter how badly mistaken or wrong it is the rest of the day.  You can not say that the clock is wrong at those times simply based on the fact that the rest of the day it is wrong.
We should be more civil.  We should leave personal attacks out of the political arena.  When we make it personal we loose the validity of the argument and it shows that the points we are trying to make are not capable of standing up to scrutiny.