This study aims to investigate the use of criticism strategies by Thai politicians, the Move Forward Party (MFP) and the Phalang Pracharat Party (PPRP), in their campaign speeches. It also aims to find out whether these strategies are used differently by the two parties and how these differences reflect their political agendas. A qualitative and quantitative approach were adopted to analyze eleven videos of political campaign speeches for the 2023 Thailand general election. The results revealed that both parties employed more direct criticisms than indirect ones. Indirect speech is generally associated with politeness (Huang, 2007); however, the need for politeness toward political opponents seems unnecessary in the political context. Identification of Problem, Negative Evaluation, and Disapproval are the dominant direct criticism strategies. Among all indirect criticism strategies, they preferred Sarcasm and Asking. Moreover, the two parties employed five types of criticism differently, including Negative Evaluation, Consequences, Disapproval, Identification of Problem, and Sarcasm. The statistical analysis also revealed a significant association between the two parties and these strategies. PPRP members used Disapproval strategy more often to show the explicit contrasts in their cultural norms and beliefs with the MFPs. MFP members employed the remaining strategies more frequently to highlight issues within governmental institutions, aim at reforming institutions, and identify and evaluate their political opponents' administrative incompetence.