I am not disabled, but I strongly believe that Disabled needs to be one of the People links above.
The other group missing above in the People area of the web site above, are Seniors.
Why? Because they are under the Issues section above. Shouldn't they also be a part of the communities? It makes absolutely no sense!!
If they are part of the Issues area above, they certainly should be part of the People groups. There is absolutely no reason not to include them in the People areas that include Women and other constituencies.
Obama's Post-Election Plans (Long) http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/wadehudson/CpYp
By Wade Hudson - Mar 9th, 2008 at 10:32 pm EDT
Also listed in: Barack Obama 2008: An Honest Government, A Hopeful Future | Barack Obama
The movement sparked by Barack Obama will continue after November. "We're not only going to win an election," Obama has declared. "We're going to change the country." Obama's commitment to community organizing guarantees the movement will persist.Careful planning is needed to maximize this potential. By proceeding wisely, we can establish effective structures and avoid both fragmentation and excessive centralization. I invite you to help develop ideas to recommend to Obama, his staff, and his supporters.When Obama first ran for office in 1995, he asked, "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?" Reflecting the influence of one of his mentors, Saul Alinsky, he told the Chicago Reporter, "It's time for politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents or citizens as producers of this change."In 1988, in a long article titled "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City," Obama discussed his own approach, which differed from Alinsky's. In that piece, he argued, "[Community organizing] enables people to break their crippling isolation from each other, to reshape their mutual values and expectations and rediscover the possibilities of acting collaboratively."As he recently told the New Republic, "Alinsky understated the degree to which people's hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people's self-interest." This insight has grounded him in a moral framework that is fostering a moral renewal that could become profound and widespread.He concluded his "Why Organize?" article with this answer:
In return, organizing teaches as nothing else does the beauty and strength of everyday people. Through the songs of the church and the talk on the stoops, through the hundreds of individual stories of coming up from the South and finding any job that would pay, of raising families on threadbare budgets, of losing some children to drugs and watching others earn degrees and land jobs their parents could never aspire to - it is through these stories and songs of dashed hopes and powers of endurance, of ugliness and strife, subtlety and laughter, that organizers can shape a sense of community not only for others, but for themselves.
You help them to build neighborhood committees, host house meetings to recruit new activists, plan outreach that makes sense within their neighborhoods. You give up some control of the message and allow people to speak from the heart instead of from the handed-down Message of the Day.
Trainees leave the events organized into teams by Congressional district, charged with building an organization that reaches all the way down to the precinct level.... While the curriculum has varied with the different teams behind each training, the end goals have remained consistent: send tight-knit, well-trained and highly motivated teams of volunteer organizers back to their home Congressional districts with a plan.
There is still no online system available for the teams graduating from Camp Obama (or the teams they establish below them) to report in their progress back to headquarters. This is a huge missed opportunity to give field directors perfect visibility into the work of every team, anywhere in the country - visibility that could be used to identify the best field volunteers in the organization for promotion, and to identify problem areas that need special attention from staff organizers.
In March, people all across the country hosted Hope Action Change house parties, opening their doors to neighbors and strangers who were hungry for change. People like Janet Sutherland of Council Bluffs discussed their deeply personal stories about how our government had failed them, and talked about how, together, they could change things.This is what grassroots democracy is all about - small groups of friends and neighbors coming together to address common challenges and come up with collective solutions.... People were talking about the collective challenges facing their communities. People were sharing common hopes for change in 2008. People were connecting.
These home-based teams could meet prior to the election to talk about post-election activities, for they would inspire more people to participate. And the movement needs to be ready to act immediately after the election. To do so, the national office needs as many good ideas as possible from the grassroots, and the grassroots needs to be prepared.What lessons can we learn from other national organizations?As I recall, a key turning point in the weakening of the Rainbow Coalition was a dispute about the national representative from Louisiana. The local members wanted one individual, but Jesse Jackson insisted on someone else and the conflict was never resolved. We need to avoid that kind of scenario. A number of national organizations - including labor unions, NOW, and the Sierra Club - currently operate with a considerable degree of democratic control by their membership. We need to look at how those organizations are structured and learn from them.Community EmpowermentWill the Obama Movement promote new structures in the community that empower people?The Obama Movement, for example, could persuade all of our elected officials to convene monthly Community Dialogues to enable their constituents to ask questions and make statements. These public forums would be carefully structured to make sure that they were fair and orderly. If more people wanted to speak than time allowed, speakers would be selected randomly (random selection is an important principle that reflects faith in people). With no pre-arranged agenda, each individual would be free to speak their mind. Community organizations could use these events as organizing tools by mobilizing their members and distributing literature at pre-reserved tables. Participants could stay afterwards to network and initiate new friendships. In these ways, Community Dialogues would help hold elected officials accountable, better inform those officials about their constituents' thoughts and feelings, and help foster community.The fact that Obama has pledged as President to conduct national town hall meetings suggests that he would be open to this idea and would consider randomly selecting participants in his forums. We need new official structures like these to help make our society more democratic.Will the Obama Movement join in broad coalitions to advance its mission?Some Alinsky-style organizations have refused to join in coalitions, preferring instead to focus exclusively on building their own organization. Hopefully, the Obama Movement will not repeat these mistakes. Regardless of how strong it becomes, it will always be stronger by occasionally uniting with others.For example, the movement could join with other organizations in a Million Member Monthly Mobilization to present the same urgent demand to every Congressperson in the country at the same time. If more than 2,000 voters per district were to devote two hours a month to back the same demand simultaneously, the impact would be enormous. Who knows? It could grow into a Five Million Member Monthly Mobilization.The staff and members of each organization that belonged to this coalition could then return to their normal activities. But if they were to come together monthly to briefly support one another, they could accomplish more together than they can alone.Will the Obama Movement join in global coalitions to advance its mission?Shortly after he took office, John Kennedy inspired the nation by taking on the steel industry for unjustified price increases. This example is instructive. Our political leaders can support efforts to hold private corporations accountable to the public interest, including the need to protect workers' rights and the environment. Consumer boycotts are often an effective way to achieve these goals. But there are many simultaneous boycotts, which dilutes their effectiveness.If global advocacy organizations, including the Obama Movement, were to establish a process to identify - deliberately, openly, and democratically - a priority for a unified Annual Global Boycott, we could win victories with those campaigns and persuade other corporations to respond favorably to their stakeholders.**********Structure is essential. We can't rely solely on spontaneity. We need structural reform throughout society, including our grassroots organizations. In this piece, I've presented some preliminary ideas concerning how the Obama Movement and our society might be structured.I encourage you, by using this form or by directly editing my Obama's Movement web pages, to present your own proposals and report on Obama Movement activities - especially Congressional District-wide activities - that address post-election possibilities. I'll summarize your input in future articles. Together, we can move forward.
MY RESPONSE:
DITTO WHEN BARACK GOES TO WASHINGTON WE ALL GO TO WASHINGTON
By DANIELLE CLARKE USA VIETNAM VET - http://www.actblue.com/page/homelessvietnamvetsforBarackObama
No longer do we vote for someone and then cross our fingers hoping we get a good one. Barack has set up the web so we the people can take control of our government. http://www.USAspending.gov and the sunshine bill at sunlight foundation and the transparency bill gives us all we need to take back control all we need is barack to set the precedent for future presidents.
Dear Sen. Obama,
I applaud the fact that you took the opportunity at the CNN debate of Jan. 22 and on Good Morning America, as aired on the same day, to call the Clintons on their volley of lies. (Note: I will henceforth refer to Hillary as "The Clintons" since there are two candidates on that side.)
However, I don't think it is a good idea to insert any of this in a set of prepared remarks, as those made for your speech on Recent Economic Developments.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGC7v
In that speech, you rightly call Clinton on the fact that she copied aspects of your economic stimulus package --just as she has attempted to plagiarize countless aspects of your campaign--, that she triangulated by condemning a bankruptcy bill she voted for, and that she flip-flopped on the merits of NAFTA.However, this is not the appropriate context for such observations. Criticisms of the opposing campaign properly belong in statements to the press and debates or in remarks by your surrogates - not in formal policy messages to voters, particularly on the anxiety-producing subject of the economy at a time of brewing crisis.
Remember: the voters have to come hear YOU - not a debate. To be sure, you can answer questions about the Clinton campaign they may ask later on, but the opposition should not be part of your introduction to an audience. Do NOT let the Clintons get under your skin. Do not build a Clinton theme wall into your speeches, where it can grow into overhanging moss, casting its rolling, spidery mess over the cheers and joy of your campaign. Do not let those two narcissists creep into the texts of your stump speeches, the hallways of your rallies, the faces of enthusiastic voters. Vanquish the Clinton shadow when you are on your own.
You are clearly and rightfully very angry with them for their lies and manipulation, their breathtaking addiction to fairy tales - which they spin all too well, not you - but do not let the voters see that in your conversations with them. You are distressed (as we all are) but if you overdo the rebuttals, you will lose your focus - something unusual in such a visionary as you. Here is a reality check; do not lose sight of the final goal.
These written remarks are a disappointment coming from you. They make you look like a regular politician, injecting "mud" into policy. You are clear in describing the economic situation but are vague in enumerating your SPECIFIC remedies. Instead of taking three paragraphs to carefully outline numbers and allocations and beneficiaries, you have used up that same amount of space to debunk your opponent without explaining to us more specifically why you are the best steward of our economy. We want what is INSIDE the package - not a pronunciation on who wrapped it first. It would be naive to not respond to the Clintons, and you rightly have. However, after last night's food fight, the public needs time to recover, and so do you.
You are attempting to fight a war on two flanks, but as Hitler's example shows (I apologize for the use of Hitler in this example, but I am describing a military strategy), you cannot expect to conquer east and west, when east and west are joined as allies. You therefore need TARGETED attacks. An army of two is larger than an army of one, so you will never match the Clintons in brute force. Your only option, then, is to play the tactician. Use your weaponry effectively but sparingly. I was happy to hear Tom Daschle quoted as saying that President Clinton's volley of lies (the hysterical rantings of a narcissist whose chief ambition is not to get his wife elected but to defend his own legacy) was not presidential behavior. That is good. Let Daschle or Plouffe or others do most of the talking for you on that.
The Clintons can make anyone’s life miserable. However, when telling voters how an Obama presidency can improve THEIR lives, do not mention your own.
Here is what I think will happen as of this writing, from here to the Democratic convention in August.
To begin with, I forecast that Sen. Obama is MORE LIKELY to become the democratic nominee than Sen. Hillary Clinton. His chances are above 50 percent, although I am not ready to predict the exact probability. Challenging as the nomination process is, though, I am confident in predicting, with 100 percent certainty, that if Obama comes out on top, he will win the presidency. There is not doubt in my mind about that.
The second point of importance is that this nomination race will go on until the very end, and superdelegates are likely to play a more important role than in the past. I would not be terribly surprised if the ultimate outcome was decided at the convention itself, so fasten your seatbelts, because we have a long ride ahead of us.
Hillary will win the Nevada caucus (Jan. 20). We have a large organization there, but she is better known, has the support of the democratic establishment, and the Obama campaign has been putting less effort into that state than in others. (A telling sign of this was that he made a visit to California earlier this week, right in the heat of the Nevada contest.) He has the support of the Culinary Workers' Union, but union members are under no obligation to follow the leadership's recommendation. This RELATIVE lack of involvement by the campaign may be the result of a strategy - which I consider wise - to emphasize other states. The campaign, like those of the oppostion, has to pick its battles.
Obama will score a commanding win in South Carolina (Jan. 26), adding momentum to his campaign as he enters the Feb. 5 contests. Black voters have been buoyed by his support amongst whites in Iowa; a loss in Nevada, which has a high Latino population, will probably mean less to them as they examine Obama's electability. Blacks' chief concern in assessing Obama's viability as a nominee concerns the white vote.
On Feb. 5th, and going forward, Obama is likely to score many victories in heavily black southern states like Georgia (Feb. 5), where he has strong support and also in "red" states, where his organization is very strong and where he has received some key superdelegate endorsements. The other reason for his good performance in red states is because Hillary attracts fewer independents and republicans. However, we may face another challenge in McCain, who also has crossover appeal, albeit to a lesser extent than Our Candidate (But, as a nominee, McCain will be the hardest republican to beat because he is also an independent-minded maverick; however, the similarities end there).
Hillary is generally stronger in the large states and the Southwest, whereas Obama is strongest in the interior and the South. I predict that we will win a larger number of relatively smaller states; added together, they are likely to secure our victory.
Here are some thoughts on a few other states:
--In the South, Alabama (Feb. 5) and Tennessee (Feb. 5) are likely to be ours.--We could very well win Kansas (Feb. 5), where a lot of state legislators have endorsed Obama (politicians being opportunists, these endorsements likely reflect the feeling among that state's democrats).--We may also win Minnesota (Feb. 5), Colorado (Feb. 5), Oregon (May 20), South Dakota (June. 3), Wisconsin (Feb. 19), Alaska (Feb. 5), D.C. (Feb. 12), Hawaii (Feb. 19) and, of course, Illinois (Feb. 5), by a mile.--California, being a Feb. 5th state, is likely to go to Hillary in general, but since that state's delegates are allotted in proportion to a candidate's win, we will gain much because we will swipe a significant number of delegates and SUPERdelegates who have endorsed Obama. Albeit to a lesser extent than California, we will also win the backing of some delegates in New York (Feb. 5), which also apportions its delegates in proportion to the vote.--I have no idea or opinion on what will happen in Texas (March 4), with its 228 delegates; we will know more in the next few weeks.--Hillary win will New Jersey (Feb. 5) and Pennsylvania (April 22), although her margin of victory in the former will be embarrassingly small.--Finally, I predict that we will do very well in New England. States like Massachusetts (Feb. 5) and Vermont (March 4) are likely to go Obama's way.
--In the South, Alabama (Feb. 5) and Tennessee (Feb. 5) are likely to be ours.
--We could very well win Kansas (Feb. 5), where a lot of state legislators have endorsed Obama (politicians being opportunists, these endorsements likely reflect the feeling among that state's democrats).
--We may also win Minnesota (Feb. 5), Colorado (Feb. 5), Oregon (May 20), South Dakota (June. 3), Wisconsin (Feb. 19), Alaska (Feb. 5), D.C. (Feb. 12), Hawaii (Feb. 19) and, of course, Illinois (Feb. 5), by a mile.
--California, being a Feb. 5th state, is likely to go to Hillary in general, but since that state's delegates are allotted in proportion to a candidate's win, we will gain much because we will swipe a significant number of delegates and SUPERdelegates who have endorsed Obama. Albeit to a lesser extent than California, we will also win the backing of some delegates in New York (Feb. 5), which also apportions its delegates in proportion to the vote.
--I have no idea or opinion on what will happen in Texas (March 4), with its 228 delegates; we will know more in the next few weeks.
--Hillary win will New Jersey (Feb. 5) and Pennsylvania (April 22), although her margin of victory in the former will be embarrassingly small.
--Finally, I predict that we will do very well in New England. States like Massachusetts (Feb. 5) and Vermont (March 4) are likely to go Obama's way.
So what do the rest of you think?
I have compiled some basic information on how the democratic caucus works in Nevada. Please feel free to comment or add additional information:
Who is eligible to Vote?
All participants must be Democrats registered to vote in the precinct. A list of registered Democrats will be available at the caucuses. If you are not on the list and are not registered to vote, you will be able to register as a Democrat at the caucus.
• Seventeen-year-olds, who will be 18 by the general election on November 4, 2008, will be allowed to fully participate. They will be required to fill out a voter registration card and register as a Democrat if they have not done so already. • Participants may register to vote at the caucus. Republicans, nonpartisans and others can change registration to become a Democrat that day.
Source: Nevada Democratic Party
When will the voting take place?
On January 19, arrive by 11:00 am to register.
How does the caucus process work?
There are 33 delegates at stake. Here is how the Nevada Democratic party translates votes into delegates:
-- For caucuses which elect one (1) delegate: No groups may form, the delegate must be elected by the whole caucus
-- For caucuses which elect two (2) delegates: Viable groups must contain 25% of attendees (# eligible attendees X .25)
-- For caucuses which elect three (3) delegates: Viable groups must contain 1/6th of attendees (# eligible attendees, divided by 6)
-- For caucuses which elect four (4) or more delegates: Viable groups must contain 15% of attendees (# eligible attendees X .15)
Caucus participants will indicate which candidate they support. The precinct caucus chair will then announce which candidates have the most support and which candidates do not have enough support to meet the “viability” threshold. Caucus participants who support a candidate who is not viable and has not met the threshold of support to continue will then realign themselves with their second choice candidate. Based on the size of the presidential preference groups in support of one candidate or another, the delegates to the county convention are apportioned.
Source: Office of the Nevada Secretary of State
How are delegates apportioned?
Party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen.
Friday 18 April - Sunday 20 April 2008: The Nevada State Democratic Convention convenes. On Saturday 19 April 2008, the State Convention chooses 25 of Nevada's 33 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Sixteen district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the support among the delegates to the State Convention from each of the State's 3 congressional districts.
Congressional District 1: 6
Congressional District 2: 6 (Washoe 3, Rural Counties 1, Clark 2)
Congressional District 3: 4
In addition, 9 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the support among the delegates to the State Convention as a whole.
The remaining 8 National Convention delegates consist of
These 8 delegates and will go to the Democratic National Convention officially "Unpledged".
Source: The New York Times, The Nevada Democratic Party, Thegreenpapers.com
IOWA *
Date of voting: Jan. 3
Type of election: Closed Caucus
Deadline for registration: Can register at the caucus site
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats only
Deadline for changing parties: At the Caucus site
Caucus begins: 6:30 PM
Number of delegates: Pledged: 45 Not pledged: 11
MICHIGAN **
Date of Voting: Jaunary 15
Type of election: Proportional Modified Primary
Deadline for registration: 30 days before election date
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats and those registered to vote but NOT REGISTERED with a political party
Deadline for changing parties: At the voting booth
Number of delegates: 128 Pledged: 128 Not pledged: 29
NEVADA
Date of voting: January 19
Doors open: 11: AM
Deadline for registration: At Caucus site
Who can vote for Obama? Registered Democrats
Deadline for changing parties: ????
Number of delegates: 25 Pledged: 25 Not pledged: 8
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Date of voting: January 8
Deadline for registration: Meet with the Supervisors of the Checklist no later than the day prior to the filing period for the Presidential Primary
October 12, 2007): This is the last day you can change your party affiliation before the Presidential Primary.
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats and “undeclared” voters, BUT undeclared voters MUST declare that they will vote democrat at the polling booth.
Deadline for changing parties: October 12, 2007
Number of delegates: 22 Pledged: 22 Not pledged: 8
SOUTH CAROLINA
Date of voting: January 26
Type of election: Proportional Open Primary
Deadline for registration: 30 days before the primaries
Who can vote for Obama? “Participation is open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats. All voters in the primary and all participants in the precinct meetings and caucuses shall sign the following statement prior to voting: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I am a registered voter of this precinct, I consider myself to be a Democrat, and I have not participated in the 2008 Presidential nominating process of any other political party".”
Deadline for changing parties: (see above)
Number of delegates: 45 Pledged: 45 Not pledged: 9
FLORIDA †
Date of voting: January 29
Type of election: Proportional Closed Primary
Deadline for registration: 29 days before the election
Who can vote for Obama? Only registered democrats
Deadline for changing parties:????
Number of delegates: 185 Pledged: 185 Not pledged: 25
FEBRUARY 5 STATES
ALABAMA
Deadline for registration: ?????
Who can vote for Obama? Open – any party
Deadline for changing parties: N/A
Number of delegates: 52 Pledged: 52 Not pledged: 8
ALASKA
Type of election: Closed Caucus – 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
Deadline for registration: between now and February 5, and to change parties
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats
Deadline for changing parties????
Number of delegates: 13 Pledged: 13 Not pledged: 5
ARIZONA
Deadline for registration: January 7
Deadline for changing parties December 17
Number of delegates: 56 Pledged: 56 Not pledged: 11
ARKANSAS
Deadline for registration: 30 days before the election
Who can vote for Obama? Open to all parties
Deadline for changing parties ?????
Number of delegates: 35 Pledged: 35 Not pledged: 12
CALIFORNIA
Deadline for registration: January 22
Deadline for changing parties: January 22
Number of delegates: 370 Pledged: 370 Not pledged: 71
COLORADO
Deadline for changing parties: December 5 (“to affiliate with a political party”)
Number of delegates: 55 Pledged: 55 Not pledged: 16
CONNECTICUT
Deadline for registration: By mail: January 31 (for new and unaffiliated voters to choose a party); in person: February 4
Deadline for changing parties: November 5, 2007
Number of delegates: 48 Pledged: 48 Not pledged: 13
DELAWARE
Type of election: Closed/Proportional Primary
Deadline for registration: January 12
Deadline for changing parties: October 31, 2007
Number of delegates: 15 Pledged: 15 Not pledged: 8
GEORGIA
Who can vote for Obama? Any party
Number of delegates: 87 Pledged: 87 Not pledged: 17
IDAHO ††
Type of election: Open Caucus
Deadline for registration: January 12 or on Election Day
Deadline for changing parties N/A
Number of delegates: 18 Pledged: 18 Not pledged: 5
ILLINOIS
Type of election: Open Proportional Primary
Deadline for registration: January 8 (grace periods follow)
Number of delegates: 153 Pledged: 153 Not pledged: 32
KANSAS
Deadline for registration: ????
Number of delegates: 32 Pledged: 32 Not pledged: 8
MINNESOTA
Number of delegates: 72 Pledged: 72 Not pledged: 16
MISSOURI
Type of election: Proportionate Primary
Deadline for registration: January 9
Who can vote for Obama? Any Party
NEW JERSEY
Deadline for registration: January 15
Deadline for changing parties: December 17
Number of delegates: 107 Pledged: 107 Not pledged: 20
NEW MEXICO
Type of election: Closed Caucus – Noon – 7:00 PM
Deadline for registration: January 4
Deadline for changing parties: January 4
Number of delegates: 26 Pledged: 26 Not pledged: 12
NEW YORK
Type of election: Closed Proportional Primary/ “Dual” Primary (delegates run too)
Deadline for registration: January 18
Number of delegates: 232 Pledged: 232 Not pledged: 48
NORTH CAROLINA
Type of election: Proportional/Modified Primary
Deadline for registration:
Deadline for changing parties ????
Number of delegates: 91 Pledged: 91 Not pledged: 19
NORTH DAKOTA
Deadline for registration? ????
Deadline for changing parties: N/A Number of delegates: 13 Pledged: 13 Not pledged: 8
OKLAHOMA
Deadline for registration: January 11
Deadline for changing parties: Not allowed only from June through August of an even numbered year (otherwise, presumably, allowed.).
Number of delegates: 38 Pledged: 38 Not pledged: 9
RHODE ISLAND
Deadline for changing parties: also 30 days before the election
Number of delegates: 21 Pledged: 21 Not pledged: 11
TENNESSEE
Type of election: Proportional/Open Primary
Number of delegates: 68 Pledged: 68 Not pledged: 17
UTAH
Deadline for registration: January 7 (by mail) and January 29 (in person)
Number of delegates: 23 Pledged: 23 Not pledged: 6
Sources: The New York Times, The Green Papers, Rock the Vote, various states' Election websites (many of which were sorely lacking in the most basic information), and some Democratic Party websites.
Hello Team,
Barack has given us Hope - Now it is time to give something back!
Barack Obama has hundreds of thousands of people that have contributed to his campaign thus far. Imagine if 100,000 of them all contributed on one day - or even more than that.. What if we could raise 5 or 10 million dollars in one day?
Imagine if on November 15th Barack has an amazing showing in the next debate. With all of the news stations covering his performance, then we raise this unprecedented amount - making all the headlines around the country.
With a good debate and an unprecedented raising of funds all in one day, it could be enough to propel Barack to the presidency. We could begin the process of restoring unity in our country. Most of all, we can restore Hope.
On November 16th, 2007, or what now is known as "Barack's Friday" contribute every dollar you can. More importantly, forward this information to all of your friends and relatives. Make your voice heard!
I know it is a stretch goal for most of us.
Not an impossible one, but certainly audacious.
Grassroots at Work
Dear HQ: Let me share with you a proposal I just posted on the main blog. This website is getting HUGE and, IMO, its features must be improved to reflect that growth. Here are a few suggestions. We are growing like wildfire and we have to get organized:
--Add bandwidth. This is the only website that I have trouble with consistently in the form of "cannot find server" messages or freezing of the screens. This, despite my excellent high-speed connection.--Add a search engine. This website is getting huge!--Have campaign staffers and volunteers offer their own live feeds of events such as speeches so that we don't have to wait for the MSM to use them. We not only want the speech but, also, the crowd's reaction.--Introduce more features in the text such as spell check, bold, italics, etc....--Add a feature that enables us to cut and paste text or images from Word, Exel, etc... or other websites into our own blogposts--Change the script! Those of us with myopia AND astigmatism AND a lazy eye need some help and understanding. Is this Arial 10 pt.? A bit too small. Times New Roman, Garmond or Arial at 11-12 pts. would be much easier to both read and edit. I am not joking when I say that you could attract more seniors tis way. As for me and other lifelong bats, we would be more likely to read the long posts.--Increase the size of the text in the comment title to at LEAST 12 pts., so that people are more readily aware of what the person wants to say--Create a video-specific archive of MAIN speeches. Barack TV should also be updated more frequently.--A video archive of television ads--An archive of morning clips, organized by news outlet or subject matter or date
--Add bandwidth. This is the only website that I have trouble with consistently in the form of "cannot find server" messages or freezing of the screens. This, despite my excellent high-speed connection.
--Add a search engine. This website is getting huge!
--Have campaign staffers and volunteers offer their own live feeds of events such as speeches so that we don't have to wait for the MSM to use them. We not only want the speech but, also, the crowd's reaction.
--Introduce more features in the text such as spell check, bold, italics, etc....
--Add a feature that enables us to cut and paste text or images from Word, Exel, etc... or other websites into our own blogposts
--Change the script! Those of us with myopia AND astigmatism AND a lazy eye need some help and understanding. Is this Arial 10 pt.? A bit too small. Times New Roman, Garmond or Arial at 11-12 pts. would be much easier to both read and edit. I am not joking when I say that you could attract more seniors tis way. As for me and other lifelong bats, we would be more likely to read the long posts.
--Increase the size of the text in the comment title to at LEAST 12 pts., so that people are more readily aware of what the person wants to say
--Create a video-specific archive of MAIN speeches. Barack TV should also be updated more frequently.
--A video archive of television ads
--An archive of morning clips, organized by news outlet or subject matter or date
It is my fear that if changes like these are not made quickly, the website will be unmanageable once the primary season kicks in and millions begin to visit www.barackobama.com every day.
Dear Senator Obama:
I'd like to propose a national fundraising campaign called The Power of Hope - Fueled by the Grassroots of Change.
This national fundraising campaign would ask each of your supporters to pledge $1 each time the Obama campaign makes a statement or inquiry that causes a "what happened to the politics of hope" type response rather than a direct, honest answer from another candidate's campaign.
This type of fundraiser could be a lot of fun for everyone and encourage them to pay attention, much like the drinking games we all have participated in while listening to State of the Union speeches waiting for a certain word to be said so we could take a drink.
There are a lot of benefits to this type of fundraising gimmick.
It is ongoing and not short-term.
If the competition continues using that "what happened to" line, imagine the donations they'll be helping the Obama campaign generate. If they don't want to help the Obama campaign generate such donations, they'll have to stop using that tired line and start giving answers.
Imagine how much inspiration and encouragement it will give the Obama campaign staff to keep applying more assertive pressure to generate that type of response to harvest all the pledged donations.
Think of the media frenzy each time the competition uses that line. I can hear it now... Clinton saying at a debate "what happened to the politics of hope" and the entire audience going "that's another dollar for Obama!"
Madison Avenue can surely do better for Our Candidate, particularly for what it costs to run an advertisement.
The ads are forgettable, spineless, amateurish, and neither original nor compelling. Brutal, but I am trying to speak like an average American who is undecided. They do not make Obama look like someone one would choose as the world's most powerful man. Rather, they paint the portrait of a glorified community organizer - not of a leader. The look and feel are the same in almost all cases: Obama speaking in front of audiences of supporters and delivering platitudes that do not even rise to the level of media sound-bites. They feel like documentary clips that get cut off after 30 seconds. They are strong on policy, which is good, but they don't really leave a lasting impression on people who are undecided.
Though hardly an advertising expert, I see no reason why the campaign cannot produce spots that are both specific on policy, colorful, catching, and emotionally impressive. Moreover, there is one area of expertise that I share with millions of Americans: viewership.
Those of you who are reading this blog post are most likely diehard Obama fans just like me. How we view these ads is skewed by the fact that we are familiar his style and substance and we are very familiar with his campaign and messaging.
Yet in order to assess these ads as mass media outreach vehicles, we must try to put ourselves in the shoes of the average viewer.
Consider one example: someone who as either has not yet made up her mind about whom to vote for or is tending towards another candidate but is curious to get to know Obama better. This person has more questions than answers about the election season, but there is one thing she knows for sure: there is a candidate named Hillary Clinton and another candidate called John Edwards, the man who ran on the Kerry ticket in 2004.
She now says to herself: let’s take a look at this “black man with a funny name,” to use Obama’s own words. However, her ability to study the candidate in depth is hampered by the fact that she has a family, leads a hectic life, has little time to watch the news beyond local and national stations, and is neither particularly political nor an avid newspaper reader.
She lives in New Hampshire but has family in Iowa whom she visits frequently. She attends no rallies. But she does see the following Obama ads:
"Believe": http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoDyahXT8 "Change" (a bit better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhQie6VlPo "Mother": http://youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4 "What If": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1 "Choices": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1 "Quiet": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A9wGzJHPUg "Need": http://nh.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaNHHQ/CnBD
"Believe": http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoDyahXT8
"Change" (a bit better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhQie6VlPo
"Mother": http://youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4
"What If": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1
"Choices": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1
"Quiet": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A9wGzJHPUg
"Need": http://nh.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaNHHQ/CnBD
What will this voter take with her after viewing these spots? Not much, I argue. The spots distill this extraordinary leader and his epochal policies into rather flat platitudes. This voter I profile is understandably unimpressed.
Obama’s thinking is certainly not conventional, but his ads are. Policy points are lost in the template, and the crowds of supporters have limited impact simply because all ads can be staged. Even the “mother” ad is dull if you don’t already love Obama the way we do. The story of his mother is typical of campaigns that, to sound brutal, seek to pull heartstrings. The fact that this spot pulls YOUR heartstrings and MINE is not really an indicator of how it will affect a more dispassionate viewer.
Let’s examine ads by two other candidates − Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. The purpose of this discussion is not to compare the merits of those campaigns with this one, but to contrast more and less effective ways of messaging a candidate’s particular point of view.
This ad “By The Numbers,” is from the Clinton campaign, and was aired during the CNN/YouTube debate that took place on July 23, 2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq6F8tE0-fE
Very simple, concise and easy to remember. Pink pages with a series of rather devastating statistics from the Bush regime are shown to music. There is an element of both humor and outrage both in the music and the font type of the writing that clearly reflects the mixture of emotions with which Hillary herself speaks about her two chief campaign messages of ‘I Will Put An End to the Bush Era,’ and ‘Vote For Me Because I Am a Woman.’
Now, let’s watch Edwards’s superb “Hair” commercial. It is one of the best I have ever seen from any political candidate running for any office. It was also aired at the CNN/YouTube debate for that debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI
It is poignant, angry at injustice, and the message is that, instead of focusing on the superficial, we should worry about poverty and the war. By superimposing what the campaign wants to show as a superficial criticism of a $400 haircut with devastating scenes of Katrina, the ad coveys Edwards’s thinking with uncanny precision.
And here is the ad that Our Candidate submitted to CNN/You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y48LMXKxJwc
Whose ads are the most memorable? Most certainly not Obama’s. Although this one is better than some of his others, it does not leave any salient message beyond crowds, and ‘Vote For Obama.’ Our Candidate may be memorable but his words, in this ad, are not. Finally, the music is the type one would expect to hear at a Democratic convention: friendly, generic crowd pleasing and otherwise dull.
I propose that the campaign fork out a few million to Messrs Saatchi & Saatchi, or some such firm, and roll out a series of high-impact ads whose key subliminal message is "electability." That would be the best use of campaign funds. Because as long as we get ads like these, voters and pundits who think that Obama is a lightweight may manage to convince others to think the same.
I have been moved to write this post by a prescient NPR story that forced me to emerge from my cocoon of denial, according to which the polls say nothing about Obama whatsoever and everything about the mainstream media, its biased commentators and methodologically flawed surveys.
That is only about 70 percent true. This post is intended to address how we can work the remaining 30 percent gap that separates Our Candidate from victory.
First, I would like to direct your attention to this piece, which appeared on NPR's October 25th airing of "All Things Considered"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15604110 NPR's objective in this story is not to give a comprehensive view on how Obama is perceived, and I think they make that quite clear. Rather, it is to explain why so many people like Obama but are hesitant to cast their lot with him. They profile two groups of people and ask them why this is so – or not.
NPR -at least the NATIONAL network- is, IMO, one of the last reducts of Old Media that actually does research before reporting, so I hold what they are conveying in high esteem and have no reason to believe that they are trying to undermine Our Candidate. Not all pieces have to be positive in order to be legitimate and well crafted.
Naturally, I disagree with what the skeptics cited say about Obama - that he lacks substance, is not much different from Hillary, and is trounced by her in the debates. These people have clearly not listened to or understood Obama despite their assertions to the contrary. However, the views they express are widely held by non-supporters. One can rightfully argue that they are mistaken; nonetheless, in the annals of campaigning, even stupid or misinformed voters (assuming these are either, which they may not be) must be courted in the interests of victory.
What these voters say also provides a good starting point, as we opiniâtres and self-styled soldiers of Obama set about honing our grassroots messaging strategy for the remainder of the campaign. The piece, like all clouds, has a silver lining in that it enables us to understand how best to tackle the skeptics' views. In bombarding Old and New Media with comments and blogs, we must do the following:
First, what we have been doing all along, which is by correcting factual errors. Second, by countering claims that Obama lacks substance. Not by arguing with other posters, though, but by citing either his policy points, or VERY SPECIFIC aspects of his biography that help illuminate the substance behind the man. Third, by highlighting the policy and philosophical differences with Hillary. This could be done by our pointing out such things as Senate votes and statements. It may help to go to Hillary's website and read her platform so that we can quote one view against the other. It is tempting to merely point to differences in character (as I have done myself a million times) but that will not convince voters who have no trouble with lack of integrity, or who believe that any attack against Hillary is pure politics. Finally, we must demonstrate that the notion that Hillary is trouncing Obama in the debates is largely borne of media distortions, not facts. Listen to what people say when they express this view. Trounced how - by better oratory, better synthesis of ideas? We can respond by quoting Barack and demonstrating how his arguments carried the day, while her responses failed to address a particular question and left many potential voters unimpressed. (The last debate was a disaster for Hillary.) In other words, we passionate Obama-ites have to become temperamentally muted but equally direct and incisive in our responses.
In the same piece, NPR quotes a recent poll (not identified) supposedly showing that half of Americans have not yet made up their minds about whom to vote for. It is not clear whether the survey refers to all voters or only Democrats, but these findings, if true, give us ample room for maneuver regardless of which group was polled.
If we adopt this strategy, we may succeed in recruiting more people who are conservative in their vote and not necessarily anxious for change, but for detail. These may not be people whose approach to the nation's future we value highly, but a key tenet of what I refer to as the Obama Doctrine is that his movement can accommodate supporters who disagree with each other. Reining in these voters could propel Our Candidate to victory by a landslide.
I can think of one missed opportunity; missed because I, for one, failed to seize it. There is one frequent NYT Caucus Blog participant who may have been persuaded but who now backs Hillary after staying on the fence for a long time. I was remiss in seeing this and not doing something about it. She has become a true Hillary fanatic.
To understand how Sen. Obama can continue to deal with the Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, one has to understand what I will call the Obama Doctrine. There is no doubt that McClurkin's views on gays are disturbing. Obama quickly issued a statement unequivocally disagreeing with them, but explained that the singer's views reflect a broader struggle within the black community (in this case) to come to terms with homosexuality both in the home and as a societal phenomenon. The Tenets of the Doctrine Obama's point is that McClurkin deserves a seat at the table of political dialogue; that one cannot ignore homophobia by sweeping it under the carpet, and then wonder why it is there, why one's attempts to whitewash dissent didn't work, and why there is still dirt on the floor that lies beneath that carpet you so assiduously spent an entire morning cleaning. When the Senator talks about unity, he is not saying that it already exists. The Obama Doctrine unequivocally states that one cannot achieve unity and change unless one is willing to directly engage those with different views. It is in this context that Obama states that he would consider meeting with dictators without pre-conditions, a stance embraced by Nixon and FDR, and one that paved the way for some of the best moments in American foreign policy. The exercise of leadership and courage always involves risk and forays into untrodden ground. Thus, Obama's acceptance of a financial contribution or a form of support from McClurkin is both sound of doctrine and morally legitimate AS LONG AS OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS VIEWS AND SAYS SO PUBLICLY, which he has. In a similar vein, amongst the hundreds of thousands of us who donate to the campaign, there are many who do not agree with Obama himself on everything. Indeed, it is the Senator himself who frequently points out that, as President, he may at times disagree with us and we may disagree with him. Yet either way he will still fight for us, not against us. That is where the Doctrine is intended to lead, and it reflects the direction of Obama's political ideology. While most politicians support a laundry list of issues first and join a party or caucus second, Obama does the opposite because he recognizes, as few politicians do, that any policy platform must first rest on a philosophy before resting on solid grounds. Obama is embracing McClurkin as a citizen, not as a thinker. His message of unity is thus exposed in its splendid admixture of strengths and challenges. “There are easier choices that you can make in this election," Obama says. "People who will follow the well-worn grooves…people who will deliver pretty much more of the same.” A Risky Proposition The real risk in supporting Obama is NOT that voting for a half black, young, first-term U.S. senator with a "funny name" may not put one in line with the winner of the election. Rather, the fundamental risk lies within ourselves; in how willing we are to vote for a break from decades of mediocre leadership and political stagnation for which both Republicans AND Democrats are to blame; in how willing we are to confront the growing pains associated with uniting a country under common goals while, at the same time, agreeing to speak with those we disagree with. This has been done before by our great leaders and it can happen again, but only if we have the courage to abet change.
To understand how Sen. Obama can continue to deal with the Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, one has to understand what I will call the Obama Doctrine. There is no doubt that McClurkin's views on gays are disturbing. Obama quickly issued a statement unequivocally disagreeing with them, but explained that the singer's views reflect a broader struggle within the black community (in this case) to come to terms with homosexuality both in the home and as a societal phenomenon.
The Tenets of the Doctrine
Obama's point is that McClurkin deserves a seat at the table of political dialogue; that one cannot ignore homophobia by sweeping it under the carpet, and then wonder why it is there, why one's attempts to whitewash dissent didn't work, and why there is still dirt on the floor that lies beneath that carpet you so assiduously spent an entire morning cleaning. When the Senator talks about unity, he is not saying that it already exists. The Obama Doctrine unequivocally states that one cannot achieve unity and change unless one is willing to directly engage those with different views. It is in this context that Obama states that he would consider meeting with dictators without pre-conditions, a stance embraced by Nixon and FDR, and one that paved the way for some of the best moments in American foreign policy. The exercise of leadership and courage always involves risk and forays into untrodden ground. Thus, Obama's acceptance of a financial contribution or a form of support from McClurkin is both sound of doctrine and morally legitimate AS LONG AS OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS VIEWS AND SAYS SO PUBLICLY, which he has. In a similar vein, amongst the hundreds of thousands of us who donate to the campaign, there are many who do not agree with Obama himself on everything.
Indeed, it is the Senator himself who frequently points out that, as President, he may at times disagree with us and we may disagree with him. Yet either way he will still fight for us, not against us. That is where the Doctrine is intended to lead, and it reflects the direction of Obama's political ideology. While most politicians support a laundry list of issues first and join a party or caucus second, Obama does the opposite because he recognizes, as few politicians do, that any policy platform must first rest on a philosophy before resting on solid grounds. Obama is embracing McClurkin as a citizen, not as a thinker. His message of unity is thus exposed in its splendid admixture of strengths and challenges. “There are easier choices that you can make in this election," Obama says. "People who will follow the well-worn grooves…people who will deliver pretty much more of the same.”
A Risky Proposition
The real risk in supporting Obama is NOT that voting for a half black, young, first-term U.S. senator with a "funny name" may not put one in line with the winner of the election.
Rather, the fundamental risk lies within ourselves; in how willing we are to vote for a break from decades of mediocre leadership and political stagnation for which both Republicans AND Democrats are to blame; in how willing we are to confront the growing pains associated with uniting a country under common goals while, at the same time, agreeing to speak with those we disagree with. This has been done before by our great leaders and it can happen again, but only if we have the courage to abet change.
And not necessarily in this order:
1. "Sen. Clinton, you have tried every which way to use my ideas as slogans, as though by simply repeating something someone else has said you can feel it. You cannot say something just because I say it, or because it sounds catchy. You must believe it. Leaders do not merely speak; they believe."
2. The hallmark of leadership and political courage is being able to actually say what you think loud and clear. Triangulation is the refuge of fear. And fear over what other countries will think when you discuss nuclear weapons is the refuge of a follower.
3. Earth to Hillary: Bush is not running for re-election. If you keep spending most of your campaign criticizing him instead of proposing your own ideas, I will have to wonder whether you are running against a ghost.
4. If you insist on straddling the fence on the issues, such as in the case of going to war in the Middle East, voting for and against torture provisions and being for and against meeting with dictators without pre-conditions, how about straddling the fence politically and reaching out to all Americans, not just the most partisan, Republican-hating Democrats?
5. Apart from co-engineering two political disasters --the war in Iraq and your failed health care reform of the 90s-- what other experience do you have to be president of the United States?
6. How do you represent change? Because you are a woman?
7. You wonder aloud where the politics of hope --and not smear-- went whenever you are criticized. Those politics disappeared on the day you called me names like “irresponsible" and "naive."
8. (If Hillary alludes to Obama’s standing in the polls as an argument for his criticism of her): Which polls are you referring to? The ones conducted by your friend at CNN, the ones that do not call cell phones, the ones with the 5 percentage-point margin of error, or all of the above?
9. My standing in the polls versus Mrs. Clinton's? Not bad when you are running against two candidates in one.
10. Could you please just answer the question?
A graphic showing 4 starbucks coffee cups equalling x number of yard signs for Iowa.A graphic showing a six pack of beer, chips and dip equalling x number of bumper stickers for Iowa.A graphic showing a movie theater ticket equalling x number of buttons.A video of someone going through their sofa cushions and piggy banks for Obama.A video of people rummaging around in their garages to find stuff to sell on ebay and craigslist for money to donate to the campaign.
GIVE IT UP FOR OBAMA:
Any Obama supporter who truly wants to take Obama's lead and give up smoking could give the money they would have spent on cigarettes to the campaign.Perhaps we could find people who would be willing to match those donations as an added incentive. Plus we could pull together to provide emotional support to anyone trying to 'give it up'.
To the Obama campaign:
You are all too aware of the importance of converting enthusiasm for Our Candidate into votes.
I suggest that you set up a digital reminder system that supporters –of all ages and levels of Attention Deficit Disorder- can sign up for. College students may be especially helped by this. It would be a free service (this is where the campaign's formidable coffers come in handy) that would enable the campaign to send text messages or e-mails reminding people to vote.
Subscribers could choose options based on their privacy comfort level, ranging from simply getting a reminder to vote on the day before and the date of their state’s primary or caucus – in which case the subscriber would only have to disclose a contact address or number and state of residence – to receiving several reminders as milestones like registration and absentee ballot submission deadlines approach.
Supporters could go so far as to give the campaign the address of their voting precinct and get that address texted or e-mailed back to them on primary election day. They could choose options of how many reminders to get: one only on the day before, or one two days before AND the day before AND the day itself, etc.
The system would have to operate independently of an e-mail list that supporters get of general campaign activities so as not to dissuade those who hate having their e-mails and cell phones bombarded. Users could choose to receive those too, but many may prefer to hear nothing from the campaign except for one reminder to vote in the primary election.
The commercial with the message “Life Comes At You Fast” should not really make us laugh – unless we care to laugh at ourselves. Human beings of all brain sizes do very primitive things.
Consider the following nightmares:
A supporter who remembers that today is primary day gets ready and leaves the house. She looks in her purse, where she “swears” she had the crumpled up Post-it Note with the address of the voting precinct on it; the one that she stuffed in on the previous calendar year (or was that in a different purse?). She finds nothing, but her bulging wallet catches her attention. She glances at her watch. Lunchtime! She walks to the nearest café and orders a sandwich, then runs to work. No vote cast. After standing on the street scratching his head for a full five minutes and losing several dozen hair follicles in the process, a supporter vaguely remembers having left his crumpled up piece of white lined paper with the voting precinct address on it inside his favorite pair of jeans. He starts. But those get washed every week and he got that address off the Internet before Christmas! Oh well, nothing to be done. He doesn’t even have the precinct phone number to call for the address and dialing the operator costs a fortune. He is frustrated. He shrugs his shoulders, walks down the street and goes to meet a friend. No vote cast.
A supporter who remembers that today is primary day gets ready and leaves the house. She looks in her purse, where she “swears” she had the crumpled up Post-it Note with the address of the voting precinct on it; the one that she stuffed in on the previous calendar year (or was that in a different purse?). She finds nothing, but her bulging wallet catches her attention. She glances at her watch. Lunchtime! She walks to the nearest café and orders a sandwich, then runs to work. No vote cast.
After standing on the street scratching his head for a full five minutes and losing several dozen hair follicles in the process, a supporter vaguely remembers having left his crumpled up piece of white lined paper with the voting precinct address on it inside his favorite pair of jeans. He starts. But those get washed every week and he got that address off the Internet before Christmas! Oh well, nothing to be done. He doesn’t even have the precinct phone number to call for the address and dialing the operator costs a fortune. He is frustrated. He shrugs his shoulders, walks down the street and goes to meet a friend. No vote cast.
May these remain just that - bad dreams.
In tonight's debate, Barack said he would support a federal smoking ban in public places "if local efforts proved inadequate" or something to that effect. Yet he wouldn't criminalize abortion?
When talking to an anti-abortion person about Obama, I often point out that he is not "pro" abortion, but that he just doesn't believe in criminalizing everything that may be immoral. He prefers to tackle the problem at the source, and recognizes the troubles that could arise should all abortions be criminalized nationwide. But this statement about smoking might just shoot down that entire argument. Sure, the argument could be made that second-hand smoke affects others in the vicinity as well, so it goes beyond the individual. But abortion opponents would simply counter that abortion kills a potential human being, and not even second-handedly.
This kind of gets into why I have traditionally considered myself politically conservative. I don't believe government should regulate everything, not even everything people think is bad for us. Why not let the economy dictate policies? Ban supporters are quick to point to statistics showing that businesses' bottom lines actually improved after enacting smoking bans -- well, why not let businesses make those decisions for themselves, if it will be so good for business? Why does government even need to get involved?
I am disappointed in this debate answer. Anybody got a clue why he said this?
~~Cheryl
Now is the time to retire your stump speech comments about experience. By constantly alluding to it, you are keeping the label "inexperienced" in people's heads no matter how well you argue against it.
Your message is that you do not have the type of experience that Washington players like. And that, you suggest, is one reason for people to vote for you. But that may be a misguided perception of people's rationale for wanting change. It is also an argument that, inadvertently, calls into question -in the minds of those undecided voters, that is- your true commitment to change.
Why? Because by telling voters that you want change, and that you do not have Washington insider experience, you are implying that if you DID have Washington insider experience you might be less amenable to change.
The logical implication from this train of ideas is that EITHER your message of change comes from inexperience, and that if you knew "what you were talking about" you would not say such things OR that you are not serious about change and have to allude to your Washington inexperience as a sales pitch.
This country's body politic is cynical, as you know all too well. If there is a negative way to interpret a politician's remarks, people will choose that road.
Of course, those of us who support you know that the above is the opposite of the truth; that you want change because you feel, from the bottom of your heart, and in your head, that it is necessary. Yet the public may be reading you differently. Rightly or wrongly, people do believe that it is possible to be in Washington for a long time and still want change; they may remain unconvinced that you would be equally amenable to change if you were to reach the White House and become the Insider-in-Chief.
Keep speaking of change alone. And of wisdom and judgment, both of which you have in abundance. But realize that your argument about Washington inexperience, while good on its face, is actually counterproductive and can be used against you in argumentation terms alone.
Insisting on that line of self-defense may also be responsible for keeping you from gaining in the polls as much as you should - even if they are distorted. I doubt whether Sen. Clinton will keep hammering on your supposed inexperience. She has everything to lose and nothing to gain by attacking. But by constantly re-stating your retort, as you have been doing, you are continuing an argument when the other person has left the room and can no longer hear you.
And the pundits love to pick on arguments. Every time you say that Washington insiders call you inexperienced because you have not been in Washington long enough, they (being Washington insiders themselves) repeat that and stop there without continuing and explaining your defense.
Pundits are no Einsteins but, unfortunately, they matter because they move the polls and the public.
So drop the subject of attacks on your "inexperience." It muddles your message. Make it simple. As you say, you DO have experience, and it is of the right kind, so frame this subject in the way you have done every other: on your own terms and in your own time.
I once had a French teacher who used to tell us to never ask how a word was misspelt, because that could stay in our minds even if we knew it was wrong. That was such a valuable lesson. Never speak about what others contend you do not have. Do not make allusions to how others define you.
As always, good luck!
Pamela Mercer
Washington DC
