Going negative

Interesting.

The Obama campaign has responded with a series of its own attack ads in battleground states such as Michigan, Indiana, Nevada and Ohio. However, by running these attack ads Mr. Obama could be treading on thin ice. His brand has been built on the idea of being a different kind of politician. Yet, time and time again we are reminded of the lessons learned in the 2004 "swift boat" debacle. The Obama campaign is in a tough spot. It must evaluate the potential cost to its brand of participating in a negative ad war vs. the damage of unanswered attacks.

At this point, Mr. McCain has nothing to lose by going negative. However, he will likely need to come up with a second act. The "celebrity" spots stopped the bleeding and gave his campaign its best couple of weeks thus far in the general election. With an unpopular party, president, war and a suffering economy, it is likely going to take more than attacks to win in November. Bold moves by Mr. McCain may be the best complement to his efforts to define Mr. Obama.

If the current rate of attack ads continues, this election will have more than 100 uninterrupted days of negative ads with a potential cost of more than $350 million (and that is just from the candidates). I have always believed that when executed correctly, negative ads do work. They empower supporters and place uncertainty in the minds of many undecided voters. This election will be one of the best petri dishes yet to evaluate just how valuable or detrimental these ads can be and how much is enough for the American viewer and voter.

I haven't seen them all yet, and I can't help but wonder if they are going soft on Wisconsin.