i am a republican.  but i have liked both of her ads so far.

i like the unnecessary shot down near her torso to show the wedding ring though.

I have come to realize that little that gets in to such adds is by accident.

Early in this race I seem to recall jokes about her haircut and "possible sexual persuasion" being bounced around on a GOP website.  Certainly this would be a subtle way of answering that non-sense without saying a word.  Very savy Feder.

She had my vote long before this add.  Most importantly because she is not Frank "rubberstamp-I never respond to my constituents that don't agree with me" Wolf.  (We need congress to be a counterweight to Bush/Rove.)  I like her for lots of other reasons too though.

Any links?

Judy first ad:

I like both of these ads.  I especially liked the first one because it places a greater emphasis on Wolf's intransigence and offers a Federer bio. 

The first part of the first ad clearly states that the problem is "Frank Wolf," whereas the second ad states the problem is the more amorphous "congress".  The first ad is negative, but not personal or vicious--it's a shot to Wolf's gut, not to his groin.  In the second, the target isn't as clearly defined, it's also assumed that people know Federer's background (presumably internal polling shows this).

The first ad, is the type of ad that encourages a change in behavior.  The second ad is the type of ad that reinforces behavior. 

On balance the second ad is a winner.  It gets Judy Federer's name out there, reinforces positive associations about her candidacy--it's very good. 

It may be that the public sentiment is so strongly in favor of change, that most voters are simply looking for positive solutions.  If that's the case, I give the Federer team additionally high marks.

By the way has anyone noticed that the gas prices have majically decreased just before this election, after spending years and years climbing.  Huh?

Maybe they should amend that add and mention big oil raping us at the pumps "except just before this election!"

Very good and upbeat.  I would have emphasized the "no pay raise until ..." in the beginning.  That's an attention getter. 

I would have dropped the "big oil" bit--because there's a pretty good chance that $2 a gallon gas won't tick people off as much as $3 a gallon gas.

Like "little punk", I also noticed the nice shot of the wedding ring.  Good move. 

consumers is a scare politics at its best.  $3.00 a gallon is still cheap gas when adjusted for inflation.  I think focusing on Big Oil is a mistake.  Most consumers realize they have been paying way too little for gasoline for the longest time.  The cost of gas in europe is north of $4.00 per gallon. 

I agree with freezing congressional salaries indefinitely.  Congress needs to feel the pinch on trying to survive without pay raises for years at a time to appreciate the struggle of the eveyday worker.

Overall an ok commercial, better than the first one.

All most people know is that gas prices have more than doubled (even tripled) over the last several years.  People certainly don't care about prices in Europe....maybe if we commuted through Europe everyday, we would realize how good we have it, but alas Europe is far away and many people never go there.

TheGools, I second your comments on this one. 

Even adjusted for inflation gas prices in the U.S. are at historically high levels.  Granted we don't have fuel rationing or long lines at gas stations, but even relative to periods in the mid-70s today's gas prices would seem high.

The gas prices of $7 in parts of Europe are due in part to incredibly high taxes (in some Western European countries taxes account for 50% of the price).  Europeans though also have much better fuel efficiency standards.  SmartCars and some diesel vehicles get up to 70-80 miles per gallon. 

Even if Europeans are paying twice as much for gas per gallon, if you quadruple efficiency, they are effectively paying half as much as Americans.  When I was in Germany this past July I don't recall seeing many SUVs.  I did see quite a few two-seat golf cart sized SmartCars. 

I don't think most voters are aware of gas prices in Europe (or the incredible strides that Western Europe has made towards increasing fuel efficiency standards), but I do think that the "big oil" strategy could end up being a real loser.  Most voters have a $3 per gallon benchmark--and in the immediate future--gas prices are likely to continue to fall.

I suspect a slightly paranoid--"why is it that gas prices only fall before elections?" could be a real winner nationally.  Although I would test market the idea thoroughly before launching it inside the Beltway.

It's good to see the area of agreement on congressional salaries.  Threatening a pay cut would probably be an even better selling point with voters--even if voters realized on some level that such a promise would be hard to fulfill.

Both Ads are great, but are they really on television, or are they just website ads?

If they are on TV, what channels?

I just contributed another round of funding to:
Judy Feder
Andrew Hurst
Al Weeb (first contribution)
Jim Web
Sharon Pandak (first controbution)

Should be in time for the filing deadlines.
I checked VPAP.org and OpenSecrets.org to see which contributions are showing up and it's interesting that some from last year's state elections do not show up.

Vote NO to ballot questions #1 and #2 - still researching #3.

...the new one starts airing tomorrow...

Judy has out raised Wolf by almost $200,000 this year and is close to him in cash on hand (Wolf never refilled his war chest after Socas ran). This quarter's figures will be interesting (and no, I don't have any info on them).

...I'm not privy to that but I imagine it is playing more in the western and southern parts of the 10th CD.