Before you even think it, I'm going to pull rank and say: "Enough from the peanut gallery" -- Going Negative: When It [Does and Doesn't] Work[s].

In an earlier post entitled "I'm with the President on troop realignment," I noted:

"Despite ongoing political criticism of the President's plan to withdraw up to 70,000 U.S. soldiers from Europe and Asia, in my nonexpert opinion, it seems that this decision has been long overdue. Russia lost the cold war didn't it?" (emphasis added)

Well, after reading the excerpts that follow from an 8-22-04 N.Y. Times article entitled "Going Negative: When It Works," I would respectfully request those of you in the peanut gallery (whether of the Howdy Doody era or who are just plain irreverent hecklers) to please refrain and spare me such slurs as "Now he's talking about something about which he might be an expert from having attended the school of hard knocks."

Of well, never mind. The excerpts:

This was supposed to be the positive campaign. Late last fall, Democrats and Republicans alike predicted that a new campaign rule requiring candidates to appear in their own advertisements and take credit for them would discourage them from making negative ads.

Every campaign cycle, in fact, seems to begin with the promise of an uplifting, mutually respectful debate of the issues, only to devolve into character attacks and distortions, and for good reason: negative ads work. Voters may say they want candidates to stay positive, but in truth, they respond more readily, more viscerally, to attack ads.

"People like a fight," said Roger Stone, a Republican strategist. "Put up an ad about the intricacies of the federal budget and people will turn the channel. Put up an ad like the Swift boat one, that creates an indelible image in the voter's mind."

Mr. Kerry and Senator John Edwards did not run television advertisements against fellow Democrats and did better than expected.

But seasoned political professionals warned against taking that to mean negative ads would not work in the general election. When there is a crowded field of viable candidates, as in the primary, voters will often punish not only the one on the receiving end of a negative ad, but also the candidate who dealt it. With other viable options, voters are apt to take their support elsewhere.

In the general election, when two candidates go negative, there's no viable alternative.

Political consultants cite a strikingly consistent pattern when it comes to darker, more confrontational commercials. "Focus groups will tell you they hate negative ads and love positive ads," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist. "But call them back four days later and the only thing they can remember are the negative ones."

And studies have shown that not only are people more likely to remember attacks, it also takes fewer airings to remember them.

Negative ads also pay dividends beyond what campaigns actually spend on them by getting more attention in the news media. The debate about the Swift boat ad, which accused Mr. Kerry of lying to get his war medals, has played out for weeks on talk radio and cable news, meaning it was played over and over at no cost to the group running it.

Studies and focus groups have shown that people like ads that are based on policy, factually accurate and that forecast how a candidate would govern, giving them a reason to vote for a candidate - as well as a reason to vote against the opponent.

"Unless people think it's untruthful, you're not going to get a backlash out of it," Ms. Jamieson said. "If people think the source is credible, that the source is speaking out of a deep conviction, you don't get a sense of attack."

The infamous Willie Horton ad, for example, which portrayed Michael Dukakis as weak on crime in 1988, was based in fact and policy - namely, that, while Mr. Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts, felons were let out of prison on weekend furloughs.