Here we are trying to elect the leader of the Free World, so you would think the campaigns of the presumptive nominees, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, could be a little more
sophisticated and informative. At least when it comes to more relevance in advertising.

Let's narrow the focus: Both campaigns should lose those shallow, sophomoric video ads that insult the intelligence of any voter who is serious about being informed. And it would help if the abundant media attention paid to the two campaigns would quit blowing those ads out of all proportion when a new one comes out. Talk about overdone secondary exposure.

A case in point was a tacky McCain ad released Wednesday that briefly links Britney Spears and Paris Hilton with Obama, with the implication he's a lightweight celebrity and media darling of little substance. We're still trying to make the connection with Hilton and Spears since their appearance in the ad is so casual, fleeting and unrelated to anything that it's not even 15 seconds of fame.

"He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" the voice-over asks, noting Obama's opposition to offshore oil drilling and suggesting he would raise taxes if elected. (Actually, presidents don't raise or lower taxes; Congress does that, but that's another issue.)

The ad was even viewed as childish by some of McCain's Republican supporters. That is not the kind of separation in this campaign that the Arizona senator wants.

But the Obama campaign stumbled into irrelevance, too, when it couldn't resist firing a shot in return. That ad, of course, links President Bush and McCain and accuses the candidate of "practicing the politics of the past," with attacks on his opponent that are, among other things, "baloney, and baseless." Then it's briefly to Obama, though not for much substance. After all, how much substance can there be in a 30-second sound bite that slams the opponent and praises the one paying for the ad.

We echo the earlier editorial position that we took when there was sniping from supporters of both camps about who was the most patriotic of the two. We concluded that the patriotism of both is a given, flag lapel pins are no measure of it and potshots from the sidelines suggesting otherwise should be ignored.

We're seeing something similar here. Video ads, whether played on the Internet or television, are shallow, one-sided and often designed to distort an opponent's position or record on issues.

If a voter relies solely on video campaign ads for their information, they will be sorely misinformed when casting their ballots for president in November. That applies to contested races at any local, state or national level when attack ads are a prominent part of any campaign arsenal.

As we said earlier, when it comes to the presidential race, we'll spend our time listening to their answers to more tangible questions, like the future of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, how gasoline prices can be brought under control and who's going to have the best shot a improving the national economy or solving the seemingly never-ending health care crisis.

Look beyond shallow sloganeering to what the two candidates are really saying and where they really stand on the key issues of the day. There's plenty of information available, along with watchdog groups that sort through fallacious claims -- such as www.factcheck.org or the Washington Post's FactChecker Blog, and Politifact.com.

Be informed. And you might want to think about going to the bathroom or kitchen when the glitzy ads come on at commercial time. Especially if you see Britney or Paris flit across the screen.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.