There are only 15 days to go, but they are likely to be the longest 15 days of this seemingly endless presidential election season as the candidates fire off increasingly shrill volleys of negative ads and misleading accusations.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the candidates could at least stick to the facts. Even during the debates, both President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry repeatedly used half-truths and exaggerations to disparage each other.

Worse, even when obviously incorrect information was revealed as such in the press, the candidates would go right on using the information in post-debate speeches.

The conventional wisdom is that the debates are an opportunity to “look presidential.” Rather, the unrelenting negativity made the candidates seem like nasty children.

Job seekers are typically told to avoid criticizing their former employer and co-workers in a job interview. It makes sense; negativity eventually rubs off on the person doing the spreading.

If we abhor this in a person applying for an office job, why do we tolerate it in the “interview” for the most important job in the country?

The formula for a negative campaign ad or a real stinger of a sound bite is simple: Just take part of what your opponent says or does, oversimplify it and then exaggerate.

One particularly egregious example was Vice President Dick Cheney’s attack on John Kerry for wanting to fight a “sensitive” war on terror.

“A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more,” Cheney told a group of law enforcement officers and veterans.

This is what Kerry actually said, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side.”

Cheney ignored the obvious way “sensitive” was connected to reaching out to allies and accused Kerry of wanting to coddle terrorists.

The media quickly found a tape of an earlier Bush speech in which the president urged more “sensitivity” in the use of wartime intelligence. Then talk-show clips showed the VP himself talking about the “sensitivity” U.S. troops must show in approaching terrorists using holy sites in Iraq.

Yet, despite being widely called on this hypocrisy, Bush and Cheney went right on lambasting Kerry for using the same remark.

Does this lead to informed debate? Does it add a whit to voters’ understanding of the candidates and the issues?

No. Instead, it demeans the people seeking the highest offices in the land, and artificially divides and incites irrational anger.

We hope that Election Day will end the rancor, but even that is uncertain. Lawyers for both parties are monitoring polling places and another close election will result in another round of post-election lawsuits.

Let’s all hope that the outcome on Nov. 2 is at least clear and decisive.