A Spin on Advertising-the Candidates go all or nothing

An article in The New York Times explored the advertising campaigns of the presidential candidates as they near Super Tuesday. According to this article, Clinton and Obama have spent a combined $19 million in almost all 22 states holding caucuses on Super Tuesday-"the most ambitious and geographically expansive television effort in a presidential primary". 

In addition to an unbelievably large amounts of money, the candidates have released ads specifically tailored to geographical areas and their stances on certain issues. For example, in Hartford and Fargo, voters are watching ads that will remind them of Obama's antiwar sentiment and emphasis on the planet's restoration set to rock music. Meanwhile, Clinton is running an ad in California that focuses on energy and the necessity of ending our dependence on foreign oil. She will also run an advertisement featuring Robert Kennedy, Jr. in hopes of countering the support of Obama by Edward and Caroline Kennedy. 

Each candidate is focuses less on mud-slinging, and more on their individual stances with regard to that area's most important concerns.

Should this offend Americans or simply be viewed as good marketing? The thing is, I'm not sure that Americans like the idea of being marketed to or worked; however, could the candidates come close to succeeding without them? Probably not...Definitely not.