"The Early Word: The Cost of Going Negative"

In my opinion negative advertising is a good way of pointing out the bad aspects of the particular target. Negative advertising itself is not necessarily a good thing. I feel if should only be used as a method of relaying information and not as a method of slander. To use negative advertising as a means of slander and as a method tarnishing a person’s image is immoral, but that is a double entendre. If that is the basis of negative advertising then there is no moral usage of the latter. In this case, I feel negative ads should be used to explain things the presidential candidates have done that some may perceive as “bad” or wrong. To base a campaign on just negative advertisements against your opponent is not only immoral but just plainly idiotic.

If slander is the only thing that is taking place then the issues that matter most, like health care or the economy, goes unnoticed and no progress is made. The poll in the article makes it evident that more people view John McCain as attacking his opponent rather than explaining what he would do as president. My point is that if the focus is on attacking your opponent what happens to the issues at hand