Several political ads that show ad hominem

My political ad shows ad hominem because it is an attack on a person's character, rather than discussing or debating issues that he agrees with.  The definition of Ad hominem is that the arguments attack someone’s character rather than addressing the issues.  The book says its common in political discourse, and it becomes obvious when you look at the first block.  What does military experience have to do with running for office?  Maybe Joe Courtney didn’t want to go into the military because he didn’t feel it was necessary for him to succeed, or it didn’t fit in with the plan he had for his life.  Being in the military doesn’t necessarily make someone a better person either; why it matters is beyond me.  It’s simply telling me facts.  In the next block, it is more of the same; attacking character, only this time its Heather Wilson.  “More than $400,000 from Insurance and Rx Drug Interests” is attacking who she raises money from.  Any politician can receive any sort of donation from any company, any citizen, anytime, and anywhere.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Its attacking her character by making it seems like a bad thing that she was able to work hard and raise that money.  In the third block, it says “rewards 12 million illegals.”  Now this is more of the same, but it’s also a very inflationary statement; we don’t know he rewards them.  It allows us to immediately draw a conclusion about his character, which is what the advertisers want; follows the ad hominem theme.  And for the fourth block, “voted against bonus pay for troops” is just a continuation of the theme.  One seeing that immediately draws a conclusion about his character that he is unwilling to reward hard work and dedication.  This follows the ad hominem of not addressing the issues while attacking the character.