Aaron Okin Columnist

Effective marketing is perhaps the most important tool for success in a highly competitive climate, and few are as competitive as the United States in an election year.

The array of advertisements that have already begun to flood network and cable channels from candidates and interest groups that have an obvious candidate bias are, for the most part, taking a tone that pundits, politicians and - as poll numbers and the media suggest - the public think are "negative."

This is most unfortunate, but not because the ads are negative. The travesty is that all of this outcry could actually lead to a change in tactics from the campaigns, and that has the potential to take a whole lot out of the race.

Perhaps the most important thing lost by avoiding negative commercials is the valuable information they have for the public. Positive ads, much of the time, focus on the candidates' goals and what they see in the future based on their election. Granted, knowing where an administration would go if given the opportunity is important, but it's not the only thing a voter needs to know.

Positive ads offer an easy escape for candidates who have no real record to speak of or who have several facets of their public service they'd rather not see get widespread exposure. "Attack" ads, on the other hand, force accountability on those issues that need to be brought out into the open, which is very valuable as long as the targets are legitimate concerns and not mere personal attacks.

The second thing is that touchy-feely commercials get boring and really annoying after a very short time. A candidate can only say, "I'm so great; love me!" so much before people start tuning him out. Besides, an intelligent voter knows that politics is at its core an exercise in gaining power, not a forum where individuals toss out their viewpoints in the interest of being able to jump rope on the steps of the Capitol with members of the opposing party.

Even though moderates, including our very own John McCain, would have the electorate believe that their "reaching across the aisle" is ultimately going to bring about that happy image, it's nothing more than their own attempt at gaining control. But, hey, at least it breaks up the country's problematic two-party "duopoly" - maybe they could have a strategy session with Ralph Nader and really get things done instead of railing against political ads from the middle and trying to make everyone look at them favorably.

Additionally, criticizing negative ads publicly is, in and of itself, negative. It would seem that even the moderates realize there are times when it's necessary to attack something one doesn't particularly think is constructive. And the question must be asked, "What better time than when the nation's highest office is on the line?"

There are groups in this country that want to voice their support on a certain issue, even though they are not officially affiliated with a candidate. Since it's a widely held idea that everyone with an opinion should voice it, how can these groups have the ability to distance themselves from a candidate and still get their point across? A commercial cannot praise a candidate by name, say that its sponsor is not affiliated with him and still hold on to a perceived credibility. Negative ads preserve freedom of speech.

And finally, an integral reason these commercials should be welcomed into the campaigning realm must not be forgotten: They are oftentimes funny, in a dark and somewhat upsetting way. After releasing no less than three ads so far that build him up based on military service, John Kerry could not be expected to show a clip of himself saying that he voted against supporting American troops in Iraq. Of course, such a reprehensible position is nothing to laugh at, but the sheer absurdity with which it was conveyed is priceless.

Without negative campaign ads, the American people would be deprived of the ability to see John Kerry proudly assert, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," and that's just something that can't be allowed.

Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.