I have a suggestion from reading a comment over at D Kos or rather maybe more of a question:

Wouldn't it be helpful to look at the candidates who you are rating in terms of ads and also track, if possible, their polling? I know this may not be possible in all cases- but it really would be useful to know for example how the ads, campaigning styles, messaging strategy are actually reflect in polls that are not post mortems. Are there any tracking polls that one can use to assertain these sorts of things?

PS, the example that was given was how much more sucesful candidates like Tester, Webb, Lamont etc are doing in this cycle versus other candidates who aren't doing the same sorts of push to win. I thought it maybe interesting to do a cross comparison of congressional races asking the same questions but in the context of the messaging through ads and the other things I asked above.

I really like the ad, but I'm hardly objective.  If there's a flaw, it's that it never clearly states where Patrick's running -- the words "Bucks County" don't appear in text or voiceover.

Loved the little touch of the police car in the background on the penultimate shot.

I thought I posted this but it looks like it didn't go through (if it did, please excuse the repeat).....I love this ad.  It helps me know the candidate and I bet voters in that district will like what they see.  His military background is done just right.  He says he's a Democrat.  He zeroes in on Bush's war.  It's a great blend of the personal (which some might complain is superficial but I think is right and effective to push) and the main issue:  Iraq.

I knew you guys would like the ad. Well, I predicted as much back on Saturday.

I think as a first introduction to the guy it hits a lot of very good notes and no bad ones.

To my ear he nails it in the first couple of seconds when he goes straight from the JFK/Hopeful America flashback to "Today, everyone knows we're way off course, but it doesn't have to be that way."

I think that is SUCH a great way to frame it. He gets the contrast between where we are and where we want to be--and where we USED to be--all in a single image. And going straight to voter dissatisfaction as simply the reality, the base assumption, what "everyone knows" is very nice rhetorical positioning. Creates a "we" that the viewer is already part of.  And he looks and sounds very "regular guy" without seeming like he's trying to, or looking like he's not up to the job. Then puts a positive spin on it: it doesn't have to be this way. He's also going for the nationalizing approach, putting in his bid to be part of a national change of direction, which is what we've been hoping D candidates would do this year.

I hope the national leadership picks up on that "everyone knows we're way off course" gambit. Because it deprives the GOP for once of having a place to stand. What are they going to do, claim most people think we're on the right track? The numbers for "on the wrong track" are significantly higher than the negatives for W himself if I'm not mistaken. And they can hardly argue that they are the ones to change our course, since it's their course we've been following.

Of course, it's not - it is if you get it directly from the Murphy campaign site, but MyDD's link (like the Murphy blog's) is to a YouTube version that, like most YouTube videos, is of significantly lower quality (particularly, this time, in audio quality).

If you're gonna use YouTube, just embed the video in the page; if you're gonna link to it, don't crib an image that says it's a format it's not.  I'm just sayin'.

Solid ad.  My only criticism is that it looks like Carney's reading a cue card to the left of the camera rather than looking right in the lens.

Otherwise, good stuff.

Good ad overall but some definite problems. I though the second half was too crowded, trying to cram everything in.

The worst part in that regard was three sentences basically jammed together, in terms of stop Bush's blank check in Iraq, start bringing the troops home, and focus on the war on terror.

Didn't anyone else think that was very poor order, the lousy handicapping I'm always talking about? The last issue that is stuck smack in your face before the ad ends is "Focus on the War on Terror."

Uh, I don't think we want that. You'll see that in GOP ads the next two months. Far superior order would be to mention the war on terror first, as a priority not related to the war on Iraq, then talk about bringing the troops home and end with a powerful stop giving Bush the blank check in Iraq.

I agree with Chris that it's very good on substance, but fast & busy and not that easy to follow on first viewing.  I actually spaced out in the middle from overload and had to watch it again to appreciate each good chunk of it...unfortunately that "replay" option is not likely to be available for most TV viewers.

He seems to cover all (or at least most of) the bases discussed here: Iraq, Bush, wrong direction needing correction, Dem ID (with a JFK intro, to boot).  Would have been a little easier to digest with 5-10 more secs, but TV doesn't provide that flexibility.