I wouldn't say many Obama supporters, I'd just say many on this blog.

And the same can be said for supporters of Hillary and Edwards as well. The dialouge in the comments section isn't exactly something that any of the campaigns would be proud of. I don't know why you single out just the Obama supporters, it's definitely everyone (though the Obama supporters are generally the ones put on the defensive, for the most part).

But again, the blogs don't really represent reality. It's a lot easier to be uncivil when you're just writing anonymously or with a pseudonym and don't have to put your name behind any of your statements.

You know, I am tired of the bickering and fighting in Washington, DC, nothing gets done.  This shit started with Bill Clinton (though not his fault) when the congress flipped, and it has never let up.  Meaning the partisian fighting.  There is no way Obama is not going to fight for what he believes, he will.  But sometimes, and Bill Clinton did this, you can get things done with sweetness versus vinegar.  How did he even get anything done?  While republicans did not like his moral compass, they admired the politician.  And I did not rip to shreds anything on what the diarist said.  I am out on the limb with the second ad, I am, I don't know how it will play in Iowa.  And I agree, that ad is more geared towards NH, but then again everything is a wait and see.

It's the right link, but the link label is "national legislative co-chair" -- that would be Durkin (mentioned in the press release too), not Dillard.

I should have been more clear when I posted the link in the update to the Obama airwaves diary.

This is a small ad buy. The appeal to moderates is secondary to the ad's message, which focuses more on Obama's character. Like Jerome wrote below, this ad may not appeal to the hardcore online folks as much, but to the casual offline folks, it works.  

I disagree.  I think that appearing more conservative(or at least willing to work with conservatives) is the best way to win in Iowa.

Its like where I live(though not quite as conservative).  Even the democrats are going to like the more conservative person I think.  

And I think that this is borne out by edwards being thought of as the most conservative and winning Iowa.

To say the ad puts him on a pedestal is really reaching.  He's a republican who gets along with him.  The ad offers hope that Congress can work, that there are reasonable people on both sides, something we all forget.

I don't know Iowa at all.  I don't know what drives caucus goers.  But I do know that the 2006 Primary had the lowest voter turnout in the history of Iowa, so I'm not so sure that people who say they know what works in Iowa know much about what could work in Iowa.

Interesting.  I would have thought the bi-partisan ad would have had no traction in a state like Iowa from what I understand about the caucuses.  

I would say that most caucus-going Democrats I know are mad as hell and want a fighter at the top of our ticket.

However, there is no question that a sizable group wants a candidate who can bring people together. I attended an Obama house party a few weeks ago, and several of the people there were attracted to Obama because they were tired of angry, partisan finger-pointing.

I have no idea how big this group is. my sense is that it is not large enough for Obama to win the Iowa caucuses based on 18-30 year olds and people attracted to a non-partisan message. But who knows? Obama will have a volunteer army working for him in Iowa, and he could do well with this kind of message--at least a strong second.

To expand on your points a bit:

But we're not just looking at one candidate trying to appeal to a mass of undifferentiated Democrats from Iowa.  We're looking at one candidate trying to distinguish himself from other Democratic competition in Iowa.

(And, of course, some elements of this race will play out on the national stage as well.)

Edwards and Clinton each have certain areas/voters they've carved out for themselves.  Obama may have looked at numbers and found that there was a tranche of persuadable conservative Dems/Independents/crossover Republicans that the other candidates wouldn't even be able to make a play for.  Why not?  Because they'd either a) compromise current support; or b) look like they were trying too hard to be all things to all people - or both.

If so, Obama would be a fool not to directly make a play for those voters, particularly if his ad didn't piss off current supporters.

I don't know about the local reputation of the Republican featured in the ad, but I think you'd have to if you wanted to argue that Obama's praise of him makes no sense.

I also find it interesting to wonder which ad the Obama camp considers to be more indicative of the overall (national) message they're cultivating.

Finally, Obama's strategy in the 2nd ad is very consistent with his overall message (running a new kind campaign).

many of those dissatisfied moderate Republicans are more attracted to Biden than to Obama.

Also, as frustrated as they are, I think it would be difficult for most lifelong Republicans to show up to a Democratic caucus. They might vote Democrat in the general (I know of several lifelong Republicans or ticket-splitters who voted straight Democrat last November), but that doesn't mean they would show up for the Democratic caucus. That could feel a little intimidating.

Iowa's primary?

But I do recall the two new IA house members are pretty good true blue progs.

that's probably the best reason to air them:  because he can't hide from it and Ill is next to IA and those states have many of the same farming interests.

the ones who go to the caucus are usually on the left.  but they are more old-time lefties that were turned off by all the silly college Deaniacs running around the corn fields telling eighty year old women how to vote.

remember, which Dems brave the cold and show up at a caucus where they have to spend all day there.  the ones who are on the left, the true believers.  look at the anti-Iraq War numbers from that state.  It's amazing.  Din't assume it's moderate or conservative just because it's white, midwest, and rural.

I have to say I'm doubtful. He's been steady in the senate but unless he manages to put himself at the head of dealing with some new scandal (and I'm not sure when he'd find the time) he doesn't have too many hooks there yet. That's not to say he hasn't been good on the issues, nor that he hasn't helped push through some good legislation, but it's too procedural for an ad.

Also, I don't think he could find a Republican senator to give a nice quote about him. He may get on fine with them, but none of them is going to want to get in the bad graces of their party by lending him their voices.

That speech was good.  In my opinion I have seen little of that Obama.  Think about it:  If he had speeches or appearances similarly riveting, would you be talking about that 2004 speech at all?  Would the latest "rivet" not have replaced that 2004 speech in importance?

A reasonable strategy for a general election.  I honestly don't see it as a great strategy for a primary nomination process, but we'll see.

When viewing the ads at barackobama.com, the short one is on the left, and would likely be played first, while the order has been reversed on this post.

I agree with you that the 60 second length is preferred. It allows more content (that has to be digested), showing a range of clips and testimonials from men of several different backrounds. Seeing it first may emphasize the more restricted points made in the 30 second ad that focuses on bipartisan results in Illinois. My response to this one is quite positive because I live in Illinois and like the benefits to senior citizens; I endorse current efforts to aid other segments of the populace by our legislators. I wouldn't disparage a state legislature making bipartisan progress: I'd think all states would to make such progress.