How far is too far?

During any political campaign, advertising is a primary tool campaigns use to get a candidate's message across to voters.

I don't believe this is a good thing, but it would be naïve to believe that most voters take the time to thoughtfully consider a candidate's views on the issues. Maybe we are all too lazy, but there can be no denying the impact a well-crafted commercial can have on a voter.

When it comes to political advertising, negativity seems to rule the day. Attack ads often are the commercial of choice and many are as sharp as a surgeon's knife.

Recently, a commercial pushed the limits of what is acceptable in a political ad. A commercial financed by two liberal groups focused on John McCain's bouts with cancer.

The commercial claimed that McCain had not done enough to discuss the issue and called on him to release his medical records.

In classic attack ad style, the commercial showed black and white photo close-ups of McCain's face to emphasize the scars left by the removal of his melanomas.

When a group wants to go negative, they always employ black and white footage or photos to make the other candidate look bad. After that initial visual impression, they often conclude the commercial with a color photo of the candidate they are supporting to make him appear more appealing and attractive.

It isn't a sophisticated technique, but it is effective.

The commercial in question was turned down by several networks, but did air briefly on MSNBC. However, the ad was quickly pulled after an avalanche of criticism.

Even though I believe the commercial went too far, it did raise an interesting question. How far is too far when it comes to political advertising?

It's not an easy question to answer. Campaigns want to be on the cutting edge when it comes to getting out its message, but the margin for error is often quite small.

Obviously, the health of a candidate is an important issue, and McCain's bouts with cancer should be talked about. However, the makers of that commercial took an insensitive approach to a sensitive issue and got roasted because of it.

Of course, miscalculations like this are nothing new. In the television age, perhaps the most famous example of this was the 'Daisy Girl' commercial during the Lyndon Johnson/Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964.

The commercial was a pro-Johnson ad. In it, a little girl was shown in a field picking petals off a flower. Then the screen turned black and was followed by a blinding flash and a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion. A narrator then encouraged voters to vote for Johnson.

The commercial was yanked after one showing and generated a lot of controversy. However, it did nothing to stop Johnson's march to an overwhelming victory in the election.

As our current campaign trudges along, there will likely be more commercials that push the envelope. After all, the purpose of these ads is to generate publicity for a candidate, and these days, there appears to be no such thing as bad publicity.

Even if a special interest group takes a cheap shot at a candidate, the candidate that the commercial was supposed to help can often make himself appear more statesmanlike by denouncing the attack on his opponent.

As much as the public complains about negative campaigning, there is no denying that it works.

Negativity rules when it comes to political commercials. It says a lot about the candidates, but it also says a lot about all of us.