Anyone have any idea why my Firefox will no longer view images in people's posts?  Ad images yes, but images on posts here, Kos, BlueNC - no go.

I would love to see this ad, but I don't get an image.

also, the accountability frame doesn't really work on langevin - a democrat - in a primary... :)

It's a great ad.  Particularly for, if not the Bluest State, surely one of them.  And she looks just great also.  Go Jennifer.

it is a great ad (and i am not just saying that b/c of the planned parenthood endorsement)!

Wow.  This ad is very, very good.  With all the bland ads I've been seeing, and also the narrow lens I've seen policy-wise, it's good to see reproductive freedom is still on the map for Democrats, and still an issue with anti-choice Dems.

This ad is also very powerful as far as I'm concerned, and I imagine even more so in a state like RI (despite the Catholicism, they're still overwhelmingly pro-choice).

I donated to Ciro Rodrigues because it was more like a general election with no Republican opponant.  I donated to Cegilas, probably a mistake, and to Lamont, my best primary investment ever.  I do not like to do this because I prefer to see our limited resources dedicated to beating Republicans. I am darn close to donating to Lawless right now. First the district is so Democratic that the primary winner will be the next Congressperson.  Second, while I like Longevin on all other issues we have an assault on Choice by the religious right and must have defenders out of the very partisan Democratic districts that are left us and this seat is one of them. I only hesitate because it is less money left me to donate to Democrats looking to unseat Republicans and get us a majority and therein lies my conflict!

Wow.  That ad is intense!  I'm so glad to see that Lawless is not afraid to really attack Langevin on the issues--even such sensitive ones.  

This ad demonstrates how serious of a candidate Lawless really is.  She is proving that she truly is the leader that Rhode Island needs.

This ad cuts hard and clear, and with a genuine dramatic impact, on a very emotional issue, especially for women.  The editing/interplay between Lawless and the other woman is done to powerful effect, and the statements of both are very strong, clear and emotional on the specific issue, while also (and importantly) both drawing explicit broader conclusions re Langevin's positions and qualifications.

It starts off with a compelling statement about the impact of rape and then says "You can forgive some things, but not others."  That cuts deep into the psyche and grabs full attention.

Then...."It's a big issue and Jim Langevin's wrong about it and that says a lot about him."  The "Langevin" is wrong message come through clearly and explicitly at least three times in this 30 sec ad, and each time the expression is both strong and sincere.  It sinks in, unlike some of the other ads we've seen, which just roll over the surface of our attention.  And it grabs you at that level from the first sentence.  And it does all that in just 30 seconds.

We should keep this ad as an ongoing reference.  If we could apply its strengths to ads focused on Iraq and accountability (and, boy, would I love to see someone do that), we'd really be onto something.

Who created this ad?  The creator/editor seems very good, and we should be looking for more examples of their work. Lawless and the other woman are also key, in that what they say is very high-impact, high-contrast and concise, but also sounds very genuine, which is key to an ad like this and is not so easy to achieve (or at least is not that common in other ads).

Good find, Matt....and a good sign, hopefully, of things to come.

Excellent ad. Strong message. The two women  come across as credible, knowledgeable, authoritative and strong. I do not know this district well, but I like the fact that Lawless is defining her agenda as oposed to reacting to someone else's agenda.

She made a clear statement, posed a clear contrast and said, "this is important, this is why, you need me."

I love it!

I must say, this ad genuinely moved me.  I haven't cared much about Lawless/Langevin, I'm generally accepting of letting a few anti-abortion Dems skate by, and I haven't heard that Langevin is conservative on any other issue.  And I'm still not inclined to give money to Lawless as I have limited resources and I have higher priorities.  But I were a RI voter, this ad might be enough to make me revisit letting Langevin skate by, and make me vote for Lawless.

Fantastic ad, and brave. Most politicians run from this issue, and only address it when confronted. Even then, most of them are weaselly about their responses. Not this one. More like it!

Now, I incline to the view that, in politics, Winning isn't everything - it's the only thing.

The Lawless ad is hardly a model of truth-in-advertising: but, to me, the only consideration would be, does it work?

The dreary Crisis Counselor starts straight in with:

If you know someone that's been raped, you know it changes you. You can forgive some things but not others.

And, next moment, Langevin is namechecked!

Way to go, Jennifer - the viewer is unclear as his name is mentioned what exactly Langevin's alleged connection with rape and forgiveness of rapists might be; but he or she is apparently being led to suppose that he is either a rapist, or, at least, has spoken out in favor of forgiving rapists (or, perhaps, of suggesting that their victims should do so).

So far, a Grade A smear - great work!

Then we get the end of the sentence:

Jim Langevin has voted 27 times against a women's right to choose.

So - exactly what are those Langevin votes? The guy has only been in the House since the 107th, and already 27 anti-abortion votes?

Could it be that, as when the RNC counted Kerry's votes for higher taxes, there's rampant double-counting (eg, by including procedural votes) and dubious classification?

(Hey - it worked against Kerry, so I'm certainly not knocking it!)

Plus - do any of those votes relate to legislation designed to prevent rape victims from getting an abortion? (So as to justify the initial two sentences on rape, that is.)

That's a genuine question, by the way. I've looked at Langevin's page on the PP site which lists 11 topics: 5 are marked NIO - he wasn't a rep at the time of the votes - and on the others, he's marked 5-1 an anti.

Now - just to be quite clear - I'm not querying this stuff on behalf of poor widdle Jimbo. I'm sure he's done, and will do, worse.

My concern is whether RI women who view an ad which starts with the helpful PSA that rape changes its victims before sliding over to the subject of abortion with a gee whiz stat about the Hon Jim might feel they were being being treated as rubes.

In which case, a perfectly good point for an ad - that Langevin is anti-abortion in (what I assume to be) a pro-choice CD - might be overshadowed by a sense that a pol was engaging in blatant distortion.

Of course, if RI women have as jaundiced a notion of politics as I do, no problem...

Sorry to be shallow but could they come up with, um, a more flattering shot of the candidate?  She is upstaged by Lynn Taylor.  I'm ready to vote for her.

I am very excited about the Lawless campaign, and think that she will be a breath of fresh air in a Washington that is, under current leadership, leading us in the wrong direction.

Although Langevin voted against the Iraqi war initially, he has since voted multiple times to provide funding for the war and has not been active in demanding withdrawl. He has recently (in the last few months) started to criticize the war, but for me his position is too little, too late.

What worries me more is a recent house bill that was passed, and for which Langevin voted. The bill would allow for re-appropriation of funds, set aside for Iraq but not yet used, for use in a future conflict with Iran. He is so out of touch with the desires of this state. We are already losing 2 wars. Are we really looking for another? This is as bad as his vote to pass the Schaivo bill.

We can definitely do better in Rhode Island. It is time for a change.

Thank you, Matt, Deb, and everyone who provided such positive feedback on the ad.  We went up with this on cable early on Tuesday, and we think it does a great job of - very clearly - outlining Jen's and our opponent's views on the right to choose.

Jen Lawless has been running in this race against Representative Langevin for over a year now, and one of the bigger issue differences (of which there are quite a few) is reproductive freedom.  Certainly it's easier to talk about from the progressive standpoint in a state like Rhode Island, but Jen has never tried to side-step the issue at all.  This ad exemplifies her strong, pro-choice and pro-women's health position.

I believe ours is a very exciting race, and one worth supporting.  With two weeks to go from today, we've been on TV for over a week and will be building on this buy with more great ads to come.  Literally, no Republican even filed for this seat, so the winner of the Primary WILL be the next Congressperson from this district.  It is a great opportunity, in a cycle where we CAN win back the House, to replace a weak Democrat with a strong progressive voice.

Please visit our website, and definitely consider making a contribution to keep this ad on the air and to get our whole message out!

Adam Deitch
Campaign Manager
Jennifer Lawless for Congress

I guess it's fine, if the distirct is overwhelmingly pro-choice and Langevin's been hiding his pro-life tendencies. But isn't it already pretty well known that Langevin's pro-life? If his pro-life record is not well known, you needed maybe three seconds of an ad to publicize it. The other 27 could have been used for something else. It almost looks like the ad is trying to convince voters to be pro-choice, which would then naturally lead them to the pro-choice candidate. But no one would try to do that in a 30-second campaign ad. Right? Right??