What’s driving you crazy?

I think it is, at best, ironic, that Barack Obama’s biggest attribute, as stated in the article below, is his ability to be so like Ronald Reagan.
I think that is why I have so much trouble getting exciting about his campaign. Then, again, it may just be postEdwards depression. I will give you that one.
I remember listening to Obama’s convention speech. Right at the top, I was thinking - who IS this guy? He has spunk. He has spirit. He has the audience. He has a future!
Now, he may have the nomination.
No, he was not annointed by the “mainstream media”. He has been running a better campaign. Edwards did not lose because of a “mainstream media” conspiracy. He did not get his message out in a way that excited enough people. The same thing is happening to Clinton.
However, there is a chance that all this presumption of being the nominee may backfire. It could rally Clinton folks to give her Ohio and make at least an Alamo-like stand in Texas.
Ah, Michelle (”my bell -
Sont les mots qui vont très bien ensemble” always happens when I hear that name) and her remark. She said - “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” Now, while that “really” means (to me, at least) that the pride she already carried about had swelled. So, what why shouldn’t it? I am sure, for the first time in her adult life, Mama McCain will be “really” proud of her country if it elects her son to the presidency (shudder).
With all the internal bickering, I seriously wonder if many of the defeated side will be willing to shrug off defeat and pick up the standard of their former enemy. I truly hope Ralph Nader stays put and that Michel Bloomberg is telling the truth. All we need is a third party candidate to help elect McCain, and there may be enough bitterness out there to do just that.
Obama has the “a new morning in America” part of the campaigning down. However, does he have the “if you are not for OUR new morning in America, you are for darkness and an end to America as we know it” part down? I don’t mean to use it on the other’s so much as to fight it off. I don’t know.
If you go to where the wackos roam, you will find the “really” part of Ms. Obama’s remark has long been excised. It’s anchors aweigh for the crew of the BS Swiftboat. The deck is cleared for action, and gunners already are firing as they bear. This, however, will not be a major battle, just a long-lasting, hit-and-run sniping at Obama, et alli. If Clinton gets the nomination, the remark will be linked to her campaign as well.
Karl Rove and his ilk have a well-juiced lie machine. Behind the curtain, the little men and women and Ann Coulter are busy fabrictaing the lies that will be talking points of the campaign. These will not be the lies that will come from McCain. They are the lies that will come from drug offenders, felons and liars of right-wing talk radio.
Those are the lies that could take the campaign away from issues of Boy George Bush’s failed administration, the economy and even the war. Why is the press giving Obama “affirmative action” coverage? No one is allowed to challenge Obama without being called racist! I am not saying these things. They are being said right now by the true opposition - the hate mongers.
The article closes -

Those calling for more steak and less sizzle from Obama should give it up.
The senator’s instincts are perfect, and there’s only one thing better than perfection: hope.

I wonder.
I do know one thing that both Democratic Party candidates and their supporters better remember. Whoever wins better wear it well. Unless he or she is very careful, the nominee will have won the nomination and lost half the party.
The biggest lie that the Republican machine already has spat out is that they will abandon John McCain.
Don’t count on it.
Sorry, didn’t mean to go on this long. Class dismissed.

Referenced article -

The Secret of Obama’s Success: He Listens to George Lakoff

By Trish , Pensito Review
Posted on February 20, 2008, Printed on February 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.pensitoreview.com/77366/

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank captured the angst foes of Barack Obama are feeling.

The Clintons in the past couple of weeks have done all they could to cook him up into an airy souffle, a candidate so light in substance that he collapses when speared. They exposed him as a guy who copies others’ speeches and makes lofty pledges only to break them.

And yet: The Obama Souffle continues to rise.

Why that is has befuddled many Democrats, particularly Clinton followers. How can Obama score so many wins by offering so little — just hope — and yet everything — hope?

I can answer that question. It’s because Obama gets it. He’s been reading the George Lakoff and Rockridge Institute playbook, Thinking Points and skillfully applying it. Lakoff rewrote the progressive strategy with the concept of framing. Had my guy, John Edwards, followed Lakoff’s advice and like Obama, gone lighter on the policies and heavier on the values, he might be where Obama is today. Dennis Kucinich would have won a primary or two. John Kerry might be president now. Al Gore would not have needed the Supreme Court in 2000.

Richard Wirthlin, chief strategist for former president Ronald Reagan, made a discovery in 1980 that profoundly changed American politics. As a pollster, he was taught that people vote for candidates on the basis of the candidates’ positions on issues. But his initial polls for Reagan revealed something fascinating: Voters who didn’t agree with Reagan on the issues still wanted to vote for him…

Reagan talked about values rather than issues. Communicating values mattered more than specific policy positions. Reagan connected with people; he communicated well…It was not because all of his values matched theirs exactly. It was not because he was from their socioeconomic class or subculture. It was because they believed in the integrity of his connection with them as well as the connection between his worldview and his actions.

Is Lakoff saying that personality matters more than positions? Pretty much. Because if you don’t have the right kind of the former, you will never get to act on the latter.

Issues are secondary–not irrelevant or unimportant, but secondary. A position on issues should follow from one’s values, and the choice of issues and policies should symbolize those values.

One misunderstanding, common among progressive circles, is that the Reagan and George W. Bush elections were about “personality” rather than anything substantive. Nothing is more substantive than a candidate’s moral worldview–and whether he or she authentically abides by it.

Wirthlin’s discovery happened to be about a presidential candidate, but it applies much more broadly. It should be taken to heart by all progressives: Concentrate on values and principles. Be authentic; stand up for what you really believe. Empathize and connect with the people you are talking to, on the basis of identity — their identity and yours.

In Hillary’s better moments, before she stumbled and brought Bill and other surrogates out to take cheap shots, she was doing this. At some point, she allowed herself to morph into the candidate who does not represent change, the candidate who derides hope, the authority figure who announces the party is over and it’s time to get back to work. Who wants to vote for that?

Lakoff lists 12 traps that progressives often fall into, and Hillary and her supporters exemplify many of them.

The Laundry List Trap. Progressives tend to believe that people vote on the basis of lists of programs and policies. In fact, people vote based on values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

The Rationalism Trap. There is a commonplace — and false — theory that reason is completely conscious, literal…, logical, universal, and unemotional. Cognitive science has shown that every one of these assumptions is false. These assumptions lead progressives into other traps: assuming that hard facts will persuade voters, that voters are “rational” and vote in their self-interest and on the issues, and that negating a frame is an effective way to argue against it.

The Policies-Are-Values Trap. Progressives regularly mistake policies with values, which are ethical ideas like empathy, responsibility, fairness, freedom, justice, and so on. Policies are not themselves values, though they are, or should be, based on values. Thus, Social Security and universal health insurance are not values; they are policies meant to reflect and codify the values of human dignity, the common good, fairness, and equality.

The Centrist Trap. A common mistaken ideology has convinced many progressives that they must “move to the right” to get more votes. In reality, this is counterproductive. By moving to the right, progressives actually help activate the right’s values and give up on their own. In the process, they also alienate their base.

Those calling for more steak and less sizzle from Obama should give it up. The senator’s instincts are perfect, and there’s only one thing better than perfection: hope.

Trish is a regular blogger for the Pensito Review.

© 2008 Pensito Review All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.pensitoreview.com/77366/