both Clinton and Obama are voting for cloture on Reid-Feingold.

Both ads do a good job of holding Bush responsible but neither ad ties the Iraq mess to the Republican Party and to the Republicans in Congress who keep voting around 98% to support the failed Republican policy.  While this might be good politics in terms of a veto override, it is lousy politics in terms of 2008.  There are real differences between the parties and the war in Iraq is clearly a major difference.

I like them both.  Edwards subtle nod to the teh gays by having the androgenous woman in there was nice.  I liked Dodd's, though I thought the "I'm serious cause my head is at an angle" was a bit much.

I like both ads. However I like the Iowa version of the Edwards ad better only because they seem like slightly more genuine representatives of people.  What I really like about this ad is that it reminds people that they want out of Iraq and Bush is keeping the troops there.  

I like Dodd's ad too.  Again it both introduces Dodd and it focuses clearly on an issue that is important today.  That is good strategy rather than think ahead to 2008.  I like the phrase "we should have the courage of our convictions".  His criticism of the others is deftly done.

Both ads invite people to pay attention to current politics.  

I like Dodd's, but it doesn't deal with his fundamental problem - he comes across as a policy wonk, a lifelong senator who doesn't have the mindset or the personality of a president nor a signature issue to build his support upon.

That's not to say I dislike him (I voted for him in the straw poll), but no matter how on message his ads are, he's not going to move up unless he picks a pet issue and rebrands himself.

Dodds ad is geared to an Iowa audience. The edwards ad you posted is geared towards a dc audience (and wouldnt play well in Iowa I think).

That said, I'm not sure why you didn't include Edwards Iowa ad instead.

Or Richardson's ads. Havent seen them myself and don't know the content, are they just focused on his candidacy?

I like the style of Edwards's ad better. The "diverse group of people reading from a script" makes the audience feel like everyone, or like all kinds of people, or like regular (non-politician) people want this war to end -- which they do. It capitalizes on the fact that the public is way ahead of the politicians on this issue, and makes the case from the people to the people -- Edwards just "approved" the ad.

Plus I think Dodd's is kind of selfish. He criticizes the other candidates, but his ad doesn't seem to be directed at getting them to vote against the war; it's focused on the fact that that Dodd will. Not slimy or unethical, just selfish.

Both Good Ads but I like Dodd's better just for the pure fact that he is the focus of the ad and not actors. I know they were going for a voice of the people kind of thing, but it seems a little fake.

I agree that the actors in the Edwards ad don't seem authentic.  It's also hard to follow the train of thought when the narration is passed from actor to actor.  Good content, though.