By Bob Morgan, Jr.

As editors of The New York Times found out in the last few days, but has been apparent for years, the public is frequently not all that receptive to "gotcha" attacks on political candidates.

In a 3000-word article ostensibly about Senator John McCain's lack of sensitivity to appearances of impropriety concerning lobbyists, the Times last week indicated that two unnamed "disgruntled" staffers of the senators were convinced eight years ago that there was a romantic relationship between the Senator and a young female lobbyist. Both the senator and the lobbyist have denied a relationship and the article presented no other evidence that it existed.

The Times received thousands of messages protesting the article. The paper's "public editor," Clark Hoyt, was critical as well, writing in Sunday's op ed pages, that "If a newspaper is going to suggest" an affair, "whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."

Maybe there is more to the story. Rich Lowry of the conservative National Review magazine reports that a number of key media outlets are attempting to prove that a confrontation occurred between Mr. McCain and his staff over the lobbyist, something the campaign has denied. On the other hand, as Times columnist David Brooks detailed this week, Senator McCain's overall record of independence from the pressures of lobbyists is exemplary.

But for now, the article seems to have actually helped Mr. McCain's efforts. Mr. McCain's fundraising shot up and it overshadowed his rift with conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who called the Times article "gossip" on his program. .

Moreover, it even seemed to provide a boost with the general electorate. According to the daily tracking poll conducted by the Rasmussen organization, Mr. McCain trailed Barack Obama by a few points (while leading Hillary Clinton by a few points) before the Times story broke. Mr. McCain, however, seemed to have enjoyed a bounce following appearance of the story, actually vaulting ahead of both Mrs. Clinton and Senator Obama. A Gallup poll coming out after the story also gave the Arizona senator a slim lead.

Obviously, it is not always a bad thing when candidates bring up character issues about their opponents. For example, late in the 1972 campaign, George McGovern complained bitterly about the Watergate scandal, but the issue was not taken seriously by most people until the next year. While Mr. McGovern's defeatist stands on foreign policy were pretty much disqualifying to many voters, it would have been well if voters had reelected Richard Nixon with their eyes open.

Indeed, as a general rule, character attacks are very frequently ineffective. In 1992, supporters of President George H.W. Bush thought they had a good issue concerning a pattern of deception by Bill Clinton to avoid the draft. The matter was largely ignored, even in combination with Mr. Clinton's well-known personal issues.

And, in a classic moment of 19th century politics, Republicans in the 1884 campaign decided to make an issue of Grover Cleveland's fathering a child out of wedlock many years earlier. In rallies they chanted, "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" Mr. Cleveland won anyway and his supporters responded, "Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha." I think most people this year have concluded that the two likely nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama, are basically honorable men. The voters are looking to a discussion of the nation's challenges and problems and are pretty much disinclined to tolerate muckraking.