I feel sorry for the television watching public in battlegrounds states because the quantity of the adverts on the air here in California is almost overwhelming and the race here isn't exactly close. I can imagine what the folks in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Oregon and New Mexico are suffering through.

I watch the ads very closely. I'm fascinated this election year by the new rule forcing candidates to state who they are and that they approved the ad. What is interesting to me is that in the Bush ads, Bush introduces himself and makes his statement of approval at the beginning of the commercials, while Kerry does so at the end.

Significantly, at least in California, the tone of the political ads from the Republicans is negative against Kerry, while all the Democratic ads are positive. And then there's this interesting difference in when the candidate announces approval of the ad, before or after.

If I were running a campaign, and making use of the negative ads as the Bush campaign is, I too would get the approval over with at the start in the hopes that the viewer might forget the association when the negative attack ends, rather than draw attention and allow people to make the connection between Bush's approval of going negative. On the other hand, if I were in the Kerry campaign, and running mostly if not all positive ads, I would have the candidate state his approbation at the end to reinforce the positive message just delivered.

What I'm curious to see is that as the campaign intensifies and the election draws near, will the Kerry campaign go negative (I think they will have to if the race stays this close) and then will they have their candidate change his approval so it appears at the start of his commercials instead of the end.

I know this is pedantic stuff, but since presidential races only happen every four years, and we're as divided as a country as we've ever been, plus the stakes are about as high as you could imagine, how could you not be fascinated? I can't help myself.