The New York Times has a story on the increasing use of the Internet for political attack ads that might be too harsh for television.
[P]art of the Web's appeal has been its unbridled nature, and it is showing that it can act as a back alley--where punches can be thrown and things can be said that might be deemed out of place, even if just at a particular moment, in the full light of the mainstream media. . . .
The Bush Web ad offered all of the emotional impact of a television commercial without all of the political impact.
For one, a Web ad, unlike a television commercial, does not fall under new election rules requiring candidates to appear in their own advertisements to voice approval of them. By not having to take direct responsibility for his anti-Kerry spot, Mr. Bush got some distance from it--even though it is on his Web site.
But perhaps most significantly, the Web has evolved as a relatively permissive environment. A negative advertisement that might rub viewers the wrong way in their living rooms is apparently less likely to do so when they are at their computers.
The article focuses on official political advertisements (meaning ads from the parties) and so doesn't mention grass roots efforts like Moveon.org's Bush in 30 Seconds ad campaign. I'm actually not sure whether broadband is widespread enough for Internet ads to make much of a difference. Maybe for the next election.