Mudslinging to Mudwrestling?

I appreciate a good political ad more as much as the next person, probably more in fact. Nothing against G-Dub, but one of my favorites is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo8cQd6Gdc

Creativity? Check!

Humor? Check!

Intelligent? Check!

As evidenced from the Bush ad, I also appreciate a bit of mudslinging. It forces the candidate to respond to the criticisms in the advertisement, and forces an opponent to take the defensive. But when an ad becomes just plain insulting, it also becomes an ineffective ad. In the case of this video, it also makes Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman’s opponent look bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28mq9W3bKE

So in this case, Jerry Brown did not even produce the political advertisement (although he probably approved it), but I think it makes him look scared, weak, and unqualified.

When does a political ad become ineffective? Or inappropriate? What about unethical? Insulting is one thing, but take a look at this ad, produced by Alan Grayson, the democratic candidate for the US House of Orlando.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvB-mHXcWzg&feature=related

Did that guy just call his opponent “Taliban Dan”??? Turns out he doesn’t necessarily believe that the wife should submit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZGCtU3qh9s

Not all political attack ads are based on lies of course. But when it comes to political campaign ads, the same theories apply as those of regular advertisements. Be creative, not insulting. Be funny, not untrue. And be smart, voters and politicians alike will appreciate it.