AN OLDIE BUT A GOODIE


If you don't know the back story enter Ted Stevens and "series of tubes" into Google and read all about it. Otherwise, sit back and enjoy!

HUNKY JESUS AND OTHER NONSENSE

I'm skipping the political rants today and instead using the Internets the way they were intended... to point you toward meaningless junk. Enjoy or ignore at your own risk...

1. No place on Earth understands the sanctity of Easter like San Fransisco. Which begs the question WFTWJD (What Fabulous Thing Would Jesus Do?). Photos here.

2. Great Moments In American Justice. In this episode we visit Texas, where leaving the scene of an accident is punishable by whatever we feel like doing to you.

3. The darkside of Craigslist.

4. When I lived in Portland, OR there were several incidents of wealthy residents deciding to chop down 200 year-old trees because they obstructed their hilltop views. The trees were on public property and it was illegal to harm them but that didn't stop these asshats from chainsawing, poisoning or hacking them down. Because the city couldn't pinpoint specifically who was to blame, the bastards got away with it. Now comes this story from Australia where a local city council came up with a terrific response.

5. Evil Grannies. What more do you need to know?

LET'S GET POLITICAL - PT 2

Another day, another reason to spout off. Here's yet another of my DailyKos posts, talking about how Obama needs to aggressively reframing the political debate with Hillary Clinton. Tell me what you think, weigh in with your thoughts, etc etc...

THE REFRAME SHOP: Being offended never got anyone elected

Look, (as Obama likes to say) there's no doubt that Ferraro's racist comments and Clinton's subtle complicity is distatsteful in the extreme. Keith Olbermann's commentary hit the nail on the head.

HOWEVER, Obama's campaign acting offended just isn't the right tack. No one votes for a person because they're offended.

Think about it. Your wife or girlfriend or husband is offended by a comment you've made. They get pissed off and let everyone know how angry they are. And it's perfectly justified. Even your friends agree. You were a jerk.

But chances are some of them will feel two things simultaneously. The first will be a negative reaction toward you for making such an asinine comment. The second, much subtler reaction, will be a twinge of curiousity about whether there's an element of truth in the comment.

Think of it this way: 4 out of 5 friends will get outraged on your wife's behalf. But, see, there's that 1 husband who thinks you shouldn't have said it the way you did but, yeah, he kinda sees where you're coming from.

That's the guy Hillary wants. Cuz the other 4 probably weren't going to vote for her anyway.

This is why REFRAMING the converstaion becomes so important.

Saying, "I'm mad at you because you said that stupid/racist/manipulative thing" will not win Obama converts. Best case scenario, it'll turn some people away from Hillary.

That's why he and his immediate representative are better off keeping a lid on the outrage. Let distant supporters and pundits be outraged on his behalf. Get the grassroots crew and a few prominent (but unoffical) allies to come to call Clinton out on her nastiness, but express it as a reflection of her desperation/innate evil/unethical desire to win at any cost.'

Just don't start crying foul in public because it means you've been lured into her narrative.

Example:

BizarroHillary supporter: The only reason you got into Harvard was because you were black and equal opprtunity policies pushed you to the head of the line.

BizarroObama: I'm outraged that you would say that! I am a smart guy and I got good grades and had lots of awesome extracurricular activites on my CV, like captain of the debate team!

Yes, it all may be true, but it's not going to sway anyone to BizarroObama's side. Oh, they'll be disgusted by BizarroHillary supporter's remark but privately, in the deep dark nasty recesses of their mind, they'll wonder whether if BizarroHillary supporter's comment isn't just an eentsy bit true.

It also does little good to simply dismiss the comment as "silly/absurd/not worthy of a reply."

Again, that may be true but being right isn't good politics. Responding that way gains Obama nothing (except the maintenance of his dignity --which I would argue is a zero-sum gain).

As David Mamet (see my first diary) would point out Obama's merely called Hillary's bet. The best he can do is achieve a draw.

More likely, he'll be "right" in his response but still lose ground to Hillary ...because the charge is out there and she continues to control the narrative.

You see, the racism charge or the Muslim charge or the experience charge is irrelevant. There will always be something new. The point is Hillary is controlling the debate, turning everything into a question about Obama's readiness. Making Obama answer her charges. Making Obama spend so much time defending and deflecting that his message is drown out by the noise.

It's why Texas was reported to be a Hillary win when it was actually a Obama win. She's doing a better job of controlling the narrative (even if she's losing).

And think it's bad now? Wait 'til the Fall when the Republican smear machine really revs up.

Now is the time for Obama to hone his skills. The key to political success --something Obama needs to start practicing pronto or he's really going to get roughed up later-- is learning how to up the ante.

He needs to raise the stakes, take charge of the narrative and reframe the conversation to his advantage.

Example:

BizarroHillary supporter: The only reason you got into Harvard was because you were black and equal opportunity policies pushed you to the head of the line.

BizarroObama: I thought Hillary was better than that. It's sad to me that after losing so many primaries her campaign's become so unhinged that she's taken to sending out Geraldine Ferraro to make racist remarks. It's beneath her and I think the American voters deserve better. And if these racist comments don't reflect her own views then you really have to wonder about the people she surrounds herself with. After all, if she can't effectively manage her campaign team now how in the world does she think she can manage the general election... or the White House for that matter.

See? It's no longer about her claims. It's about Hillary's racism, Hillary's inablilty to manage her campaign, Hillary's desperation over losing. Now she must defend against his remarks.

And he should use them as continued evidence that he is the better candidate. The incident becomes an opportunity... to repeat what he's been saying all along: Judgment matters. And this is a clear example of how the Clinton campaign lacks sound judgment. Just like the Irag war. Just like her botched attempt to reform healthcare all those years ago.

"It's sad to see that she's not learning from past mistakes. Haven't we had a little too much of that these last 7 years?" The trick (and skill) is to take what's hurled at you and turn it into an advantage.

Hillary's people knew that Obama supporters would be offended. They knew right-thinking people would be turned off. They probably guessed that Obama would simply deflect the comment (much as Kerry did the swiftboat attacks).

The fact is, she still gained tactically. Because the claim is out there and some 'wrong-headed people' may actually rethink which way they'll vote.

If I were to guess, the comment was really for the benefit of Pennsylvania voters, where the friction between black and white is more bitter than you might guess. I've spent time in Philadelphia and outside the city and there's a hostility that's pretty palpable. And I live outside Detroit!

But even if I'm wrong about Hillary's motivations and my assessment of Pennsylvania, I'm convinced that Obama needs to start showing more tactical muscle. He can still maintain his poise, charm and style but must start framing the debate in his terms.

He's got to be tougher, smarter and more cunning than his opponents.

And he's got to do it with that gentle soothing voice and toothy smile.

LET'S GET POLITICAL

Like most people I'm a bit of an armchair political quarterback. How my favored (I won't say favorite since he's no longer running) candidate is screwing up his campaign is a frequent source of frustration for me. Why? Because I want my guy to win. So, I've started a diary on DailyKos to vent my spleen and demonstrate my political genius. In particular, I'm obsessed with how politicians "frame" their positions and manipulate the public debate.

Anyway, I've also decide to reprint those diary entries here. Beware! They get a tad longwinded and wonky.

Obama: The best offense is an offense.

Back during the Kerry/Bush face off of 2004, David Mamet wrote a brilliant essay on why Democrats lose to Republicans. His basic premise was that Democrats don't know how to play poker.

He went on to explain that Democrats are like an overly cautious card player, one who never takes the initiative. So, when they are finally dealt an unbeatable hand and bet boldly they send a signal to their opponents that it's time to fold. All their careful strategizing, all their caution end up yielding them nothing; a pot too small to offset their losses.

Mamet wrote:

The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.

This is what Obama is doing in his responses to HRC's talk of his being her VP, of his being untested. Debating the issue logically will not win votes. Say, "I'm not running for Vice President" will not convince Joe Pennsylvania or Jane Indiana.

Those are defensive reactions. The man has nothing to defend. Yes, the facts are plain, but by feeling you must restate them as evidence of your legitimacy is to merely "call" HRC's bluff.

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn’t. I didn’t bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

Even if Obama wins the debate (one that is, on the face of it, absurd) he only ends up back where he started. If he loses even a the slightest ground, well, that's Hillary's gain.

The point is to dismiss the remark with humor, grace and cutting intelligence. The point is to reframe the conversation.

Now, I do not claim to possess the gift of gab but Obama might try something along the lines of:
"If Hillary would like to join me on the ticket, I'd be happy to consider her application for VP. But I should probably check her credentials. I learned a long time ago that saying you're qualified isn't quite the same as being qualified."

Only he should say it prettier.

Unfortunately, I think Obama is missing some of the point of HRC's VP comments. Yes, she wants to con a few voters into believing that by voting for her they can get two for the price of one. But she's also laying the tracks for a Super Delegate coup.

See, if she can create a narrative that forces Obama to defend his frontrunner status, she creates doubt about that status. And so, if she can convince super delegates to cast their lot with her no matter what the final numbers say, she gives her ascension more legitimacy.

It's perverse but it's very much in-line with the Swift Boat attacks. The damage was done when Kerry was forced to defend the obvious: that he was a war hero and Bush was not. Here, Clinton is forcing Obama to defend his frontrunner status while she acts like the frontrunner.

Obama, you must reframe the conversation. Show pity that she would stoop to such desperate measures. Question her sanity. Raise the stakes and bet boldly. But, please oh please stop defending yourself.

BTW, here's the Mamet piece in full: http://tribes.tribe.net/...