Progressive Movement

Check out this quote. Thanks to SquareState for this.

“John McCain may like to say that he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he’s done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars.”

Man, that is how to undercut the bogus concept that the Republicans are strong on defense (and Democrats weak). Wasting billions of dollars (I would have said ‘hundreds of billions’) and thousands of lives (I would have said ‘brave soldiers lives’ is certainly not a recipe for a strong defense.

I am not keen on ‘misguided’. Not strong enough. ‘Misguided’ sounds like it was just a bit of a mistake, that somehow, with better planning, this may have turned out better. That is not the impression we want to give people, as I have said several times before.’Quagmire’ is probably best. ‘Failed’ might be too strong for some, but is most accurate. ‘Unending’ kind of combines the concepts of quagmire and failed, so that is probably the best option.

But nonetheless, he casts McCain as a follower, not a leader. Very damaging to the reputation McCain has created for himself. And that reputation is his main trump card. So Obama is going after McCain’s strength - a very Rovian tactic indeed. One that usually works.

Nice job Obama.

Messaging, Iraq, McCain, Obama, weak on defense label | No Comments »

Debate number 20 or 21 or some such number happened tonight for the Democrat candidates. Most of the substance on the issues you have heard before, although this time there were some more obscure issues discussed, most of which were unimportant to the electorate, such as whether Obama would reject the support Farrakhan.

And while the pundits oft focused on the specific jabs, the ol’ back and forth, I was far more interested in the macro messaging each candidate displayed. In other words, how did they come across as a whole; what kind of narrative were they trying to create?

Hillary is in the unenviable position of trying to recast the narrative Barack has created, basically trying to show the public that his definition of experience being the problem in Washington is ludicrous. She tried over the last few days to due that, but has come across a bit desperate and angry. In tonight’s debate she also started to explain why that is the case, using her experience of trying to fix health care under her husband’s Presidency failed because special interests got in the way. They will still be there no matter who wins the nomination, and wishing they will give up their domain on health care is at best wishful thinking, at worst folly.

Barack saw this and stopped it cold by saying that someone who takes millions of dollars from special interests will not challenge those special interests. Clinton has no defense against this.

It is a tall order to unravel Barack’s carefully constructed tapestry of change. Using her previous experience helps, but ultimately she has to use the construct from my last post: being an outsider for the most insider of insider positions is not a job qualification.

At the same time, (more…)

Messaging, Elections, Obama, Analysis, Hillary Clinton, Narratives, debate | No Comments »

This is the power of narrative.  Once the soil has been seeded with a particular narrative, nothing else can grow there.  If the problem has been electing ‘experienced’ candidates that ultimately maintain the status quo, then campaigning as the ‘experienced’ candidate does nothing.

Either she has to go deeper and criticize Obama’s definition of change, or she has to take another tack entirely.  I am not sure she can really undercut Obama on change.  The narrative has been set.  How exactly can she convince the voters of Texas and Ohio that his definition of change is wrong, and that without experience any claims on change is fraudulent?  How exactly can she convince voters that the first pre-requisite of change is the ability to work within the system you are trying to change?

Put it another way.  Obama has convinced the public that the main qualification for the most inside of insider jobs, the Presidency, is to not be an insider.  It is like saying the best person to win a NASCAR race is someone who does not know how to drive.  Simply brilliant, and almost impossible to tear down once that narrative has been accepted.

Now I think Obama’s claim is not as absurd as I described above, but on some levels it is.  But that is not the point.  The point is subconsciously that is how the public really sees it.  So Clinton must find a way to show the public the rather unrealistic claims Obama is making, although he is right that most of the folks in Washington are locked into a set way of thinking that precludes real progress.

Barring that, I think Hillary should ignore Barack and set her sights on McCain.  Simply start tearing him apart.  If she can show that she will take McCain to the mat and call him out on his hypocrisy and war-mongering ways, it will light a fire under rank-and-file Democrats.  It will demonstrate that she is the one that has the gumption and skill to fight the evil Republicans, and that in turn will show that one needs experience to win at this game.

Do not get me wrong, I do not like Hillary.  But at the end of the day she cannot consistently show her true self and create a narrative, so she will lose.

Still, the most interesting thing I saw during the debate was a commercial.  More on that in my next post.

Elections, Nominations, Obama, Hillary Clinton | 2 Comments »

At least for now. This whoie FISA fight is rather enlightening. On one side, you have Bush and the Republicans screaming that the sky will fall if we do not allow the government to spy on us without restriction. On the other side, you have the Democrats saying we have to be able to sue telecom companies that violated our privacy rights by giving the government all the data they had on who, what, when, and where you called.

Until recently. Oh, do not get me wrong, Bush still thinks the terrorists will attack us this week because we did not allow his minions to tap our phone lines willy nilly. This is pretty strong messaging that plays up the ‘Democrats are weak on defense’ concept. The Senate caved to that messaging last week. Part of the reason they surrendered is because they did not have a good counter to ‘the Democrats do not want us to track terrorist conversations. Nor did they have a counter to the claim that telecom companies were doing their “patriotic” duty by handing over their phone call data to the feds. That is largely why they voted to give the telecoms immunity from lawsuits over this issue.

But the House this week decided not to fall under the weight of the Bush Republican messaging machine. Instead, they came up with great messaging of their own. Here is what Silvester Reyes (D-TX) had to say,

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda — that have gained strength since 9/11.

and he goes on,

it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

and the closer,

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Now that is how you message.  Here are the three main messaging points (more…)

Messaging, Bush, Democrats, Kennedy, Homeland Security, weak on defense label, FISA, eavesdropping, privacy, Corporate Cronyism frame | No Comments »

Ah, don’t you just love the lingering smell of taint? That is, the taint of torture on a defendant’s confession? Well, apparently so does the U.S. government.

We learned this week that the FBI will prosecute six men held at Guantanamo Bay for their alleged role in the 9-11 attacks. Finally! Sure has taken them long enough. But I am sure we all are hankering for some justice for those horrific attacks.

But alas, with the Bush Administration there is always a rotten underbelly. It seems these men were tortured by the CIA in secret detention camps before being turned over to the FBI. The FBI claims they were able to get evidence against these men by legal, legitimate means. However, they were already tortured and the FBI knew what they had told the CIA. So we have tainted evidence that has been covered over by legitimate evidence.

The problem being, of course, that you cannot really wash away the fact that these men were tortured and the FBI had access to that info. Nor can you cure the psychological damage these defendants have suffered at the hands of their U.S. torturers, or the fact that they have been in incommunicado detention for almost six years now. Once tortured, how can we be sure these defendants were not so scared of being tortured again that they spilled the beans to the FBI right away, or even slowly over time because they might figure, ‘if I keep holding out they might start torturing me again’?

And this does not even bring up the injustice of the military tribunal system with which these men will be tried.

The kicker? (more…)

Messaging, Morals/Morality Frame, Analysis, Guantanamo, torture | No Comments »

Okay, that is not really fair to Romney, but he is lookin’ good. But he really does not seem to have an original thought. Look at his concession (for good) speech. Check out the video of it as well.

“In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

“In this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.”

“But I agree with him [McCain] on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and I agree with him on eliminating al Qaeda and terror worldwide,”

“One of the things we believe in is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism.”

Catch the drift? I think he is saying something like: Democrats will let Osama bin Laden get a green card to drive a taxi in New York.

Oh wait, sorry! Wrong guy. I was channeling Lou Dobbs. No, Romney is spewing the garbage that wanting to end the losing war in Iraq will somehow let terrorism flourish all over the world.

This will be the focal talking point of the Republicans this fall, as it was in ‘04, when everything sucked and the only thing they could point to is that they invaded two countries. McCain is, as Pat Robertson would say, Bush on steroids. The Republican Party knows full well that they will have nothing other than machismo to run on this year, especially since the economy will be in the tank by then. Romney is simply framing the issue early so everyone gets on the same page.

Listen to his logic - My being in the race any longer will aid terrorism, so I am going to quit.

Not - ‘I cannot win’. No - ‘the public has spoken’. Nope, just - ‘I will quit so the terrorists cannot win’.

If this does not frame the debate for the fall I do not know what will. Bush did the same thing in his SOTU, but added tax subsidies for the corporate and wealth and cutting government spending on poor people. Make no mistake, the refrain of ‘Democrats will let terrorists kill your kids’ will ring loudly this summer and fall, and if the Democrats are not ready to take this head on, watch the number of people who think we should leave Iraq shrink dramatically.

Messaging, Iraq, Republicans, Terrorism, SOTU, weak on defense label, primaries, Mitt Romney | No Comments »

Something out of the ordinary happened to me yesterday.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign called my house.  Not out of the ordinary you say?  Did I mention I live in DC?  No political candidates ever call us.  We hardly have any delegates and are usually so far back in the primary season that the candidates are already chosen by the time we get to vote.  So while we are uber political, campaigns never target us; especially not in the general election, since we always vote Democratic.

But the tight race between Clinton and Obama, and even between McCain, Huckabee, and Romney (who just dropped) has forced this attention on states that have never had it.  People who have never mattered politically all of a sudden get to have their voices heard.  They have a say in which candidate represents their party - finally.  Seriously, Democrats in Kansas can now help decide whether Barack or Hillary will carry the banner for the Democrats even though once the general election comes around the Democratic nominee will dare not even step foot there.  It is the same for Maryland Republicans.  This is way cool.
It is also good for democracy.

But it comes at a price.  You see, people who have lived their lives in the tranquilness of political backwaters have never had the scrutiny and attention of political campaigns.  I liken it to the roving eye of Sauron.  Here they are, all peaceful, sitting on their porch, drinking their chardonnay or beer (your pick), minding their own business, and the phone rings.  Who is it?  Huckabee?  Yeah!  Obama?  Awesome!  Paul?  Huh?  Peacefulness evaporated.  Tranquility shattered.

So unexpected, and so unsure of what to do.  Then, the very next day, direct mail!  Slander, salaciousness, sleaze.  More calls come, and then the canvassers knock, rousing them from their near slumber after dinner, or even during dinner!  How rude!  And then the worst of all.  Unrelenting TV ads spewing vile and filthy about the other candidates, while exaggerating the virtue and honor of their own.  The horror, the horror.

But why does Sauron take interest in them?  Because for the first time in their life, they now have The Ring.  The Ring - their votes - will allow Sauron to consolidate his (or her) power and win the nomination.  Thus the unyielding eye of Sauron penetrates through the darkness and wrecks their humble existence, corrupting their soul until they break down and join Sauron’s forces (the campaign).

But those who are strong resist the temptation to read the mail, answer the phone or door, or pay attention to the ads.  They hide, keeping their mind pure, until Sauron’s gaze roves elsewhere.  And as soon as it started, it is gone.  The vote has occurred, Sauron has gotten what he/she wants, and The Ring gets passed to those poor souls ilving in the next state on the calender - where Sauron’s eye focuses next.
But alas, for that one week or so you thought someone cared.  And they did, for a fleeting moment.  You feel cheap and ill-used afterwards, but hey, at least you got used.  Congratulations!  You have lost your political virginity, and now you have something in common with those sluts in Iowa and New Hampshire who seem to get passed around like a party joint every four years and twice that year at that.

Welcome to the political party my dears.  May the eye of Sauron not stare at you for too long.

Uncategorized, Elections | No Comments »

You all know the results; but what is the real story behind the numbers?  Heck, I do not know, but I will make something up, just like all the other pundits.

Messaging

But before that, how ’bout Obama’a speech?  Compared to Clinton’s?  Barack always takes it higher, above the specific issues and to a higher purpose.  Hillary, as polished as she is (and she was polished tonight, very confident) can rarely rise above the specifics.  Obama shines on the stump, even though on one-to-one interviews he comes across way too moderate and wonky.

When you talk about higher purpose, you elevate above partisanship.  That is why Barack wins with conservative Democrats and Independents.  Even Republicans I know like Obama.  They find him “inspiring”, and you cannot beat inspiration.  People generally go to polls to vote for someone, not against them.  Barack gives people something to vote for, and that is simply something Hillary will never emulate.  Except, of course, people who vote for her because they want to see a woman elected President (and that is a perfectly good reason).

When I speak to liberals about the need of progressives to overcome their fear of talking about religion and finding their voice of faith, most of them get antsy.  They do not want religion in politics.  They do not want progressives to be more sanctimonious than the religious right.  They do not want policy dictated by religious viewpoints or principles.  In fact, they want all religion to be as far away from politics as possible.  For them, someone like Huckabee who is a creationist is immediate grounds for dismissal.  They find the idea of a President who does not believe in evolution “scary”.

But such overt religious mixture with politics is not what I mean.  What I advocate is what Edwards, and now Obama are doing.  Both men speak about aspiration and hope as political virtues, where justice and equality and commonality are the goals, not specific policies.   Obama does it better than Edwards, and now he is in the driver’s seat.  At the end of the day, people want vision, not white papers or details.  And that is why Obama is so popular.

McCain, btw, does not speak to a higher purpose (Huckabee does though).  If he wins the nomination and has to face Obama, he will have a tough time for this one reason.  People feel good when they hear Obama and not when they hear McCain (and to a lesser extent Hillary).

And as we all know, it is all about feeling good.

Analysis

I honestly do not see how Clinton finds solace in tonight’s numbers.  She won fewer states than Obama.  Even Kos thought a 13-9 Hillary split was the best possible.  Now that prediction may be flipped.  The rest of the months’ contests favor Obama. Never count out a Clinton I say, but she is in trouble.

The Republicans are far more interesting to talk about.  McCain got thwarted on his way to his victory party, but he and Huckabee put a thumping on Romney.  Except that Romney won 7 to Huckabee’s 5 and won more delegates.  Then again, Huckabee outperformed expectations on less money than either McCain and Romney.  The west likes Romney, the east likes McCain, and the South likes the Huckster. The bottom line is that Republicans do not know which way is up, and the reason is that even Republicans are tired of Republican ideas.

Their frontrunner, McCain, has been siding with the left on key issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, pork barrel spending, and climate disruption while tempering the rapid party line on taxes and strict constructionist judges.  Huckabee is a populist and Romney was all for killing babies, banning guns, gay marriage and having illegals mow his lawn until he started running for President a year ago.   All of them want to stay in Iraq until our grandkids pass away of old age and want to further subsidize the rich (well, not Huckabee quite as much).  Either way, the public hates Bush and has repudiated the conservative agenda since they now see it as bankrupt.

Their candidates reflect this, and the one movement conservative in the race, Thompson, got trounced so bad he left before the big dance tonight.

The winner for the Republicans tonight?  No one.

Messaging, Elections, McCain, Obama, Analysis, Hillary Clinton, Faith frame, Huckabee, Mitt Romney | No Comments »