Please, I am begging. Gore and Kerry both taught the lesson - NUANCE doesn't sell!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Today my husband saw McCain on Face the Nation and Obama on Stephanopoulis.He made a very telling comment in my opinion. ( He is nowhere near as politically involved as I am and he had the opportunity to watch the shows today without me sitting there screaming my opinions concurrently.)

He said that he could see why SOME people think Republicans project strength for the simple reason that they speak in short declarative sentences and don't feel the need to justify with a lengthy explanation of WHY they feel a particular way and HOW they got to feel that way.

He felt that Obama somewhat overtalked and could have made most of his points stronger by talking less.

I have to agree with him. Part of what they mean by "elite" is people who are seem somewhat impressed by their own intelligence and want to impress others with their grasp of a subject. They have always tried to portray our candidates as that way. They paint them as emotionless "wonks" who can be swayed by the argument of the day more than an internal compass. This happened as far back as Adlai Stephenson being called an "egghead", it happened to Dukakis, It happened to Gore and it happened to Kerry.

Barack, please avoid this. All you have to do is a little self-editing.

[BeyondGeography]

1. I don't disagree...but we should give a shout-out for American lethargy as well

If all they want is simple answers to complex questions, they're keep getting hornswoggled by the so-called plain speakers.

That said, our rhetoric could be a lot more straightforward. Tell people they're getting scammed by the tax code (instead of talking about "fairness"), ripped off by the health care industrial complex (and then talk about how you'll change it) and exploited by oil companies. Make the Repubicans into the party of thieves and their defenders, and maybe people will pay more attention.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. Maybe just simpler answers to complex questions.

American attention spans are probably at their shortest length in history.

All people want is to feel that the candidate themselves is comfortable with the views they are projecting.

[BeyondGeography]

15. That doesn't work with Democratic primary voters; once you get into the GE, it is different

We spend a year in Iowa where you can get into red hot discussions about insurance mandates.

You make a fair point. I felt Obama was dumbing things down quite effectively yesterday (i.e., "they just think you're stupid," "You can't just make stuff up.). Be interesting to see what the tone is this week.

[phleshdef]

2. No offense to you, but I grow tired of the past election comparisons...

These comparisons always ignore all the other factors.

Gore actually "won" (of course it shouldn't have been so close)... but on top of that, he was still suffering the fact that he was Bill Clinton's VP and we know WHY that had such a stigma, I don't even have to go into details. On top of that, he had a horrible VP pick in Lieberman. Change ANY of those facts, and I don't think Gore would have came close enough to losing that they would have been able to do what they did in Florida.

Kerry on the other hand had a horrible campaign team. They were in disarray, there were inner campaign feuds, their ground game was almost nonexistent, etc.

But even MORE importantly, John Kerry was running against a WAR TIME incumbent and the war was not yet "unpopular". Considering all that, its amazing that Kerry did as well as he did. Flip Ohio 100,000 votes the other way and you would have president Kerry right now. And, just as in 2000, the actual results were somewhat questionable.

The fact is, if the media wasn't for the most part against us, I don't think how nuanced someone is or isn't or how willing someone is to resort to hardline negative attacks would even matter. Something happened with the media in the 1990s, as we saw the beginnings of it with the Lewinsky scandal. As long as this is the situation, its going to be hard for a Democrat to ever win. Obama has shown how he can tackle on the odds though. And this time, he has the upper hand when it comes to having a solid "no drama" campaign team and he has the edge when it comes to ground game. Its a totally different election and these few similarities with past elections don't really have relevance because there are other variables that matter just as much, if not more.

[Tejas]

66. There is a consistency hiding in the closet

Both Gore and Kerry promoted "more" Gun Control, that did not help them. To this day, Biden brags about the '94 AWB, that fact seems to be irrelevant to most here but not to 80 million gun owners.....

....that vote.

Yes, I know I know I know, single-issue voters. Keep in mind that single issue has to do with the Bill of Rights, not pet projects or anything else. Ignore or alienate single-issue voters (again, potentially 80,000,000 of them) and history will possibly repeat itself.

[WinkyDink]

69. I don't thinlk this refutes the OP. We ARE a sound-bite, bumper-sticker electorate. THAT is what we

remember.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall." Like Lech Walesa was a non-entity.
It is why advertising companies spend BILLIONS to come up with "The Real Thing" and its ilk.

[elkston]

3. He realizes this, and has gotten better in his stump speeches & town halls.

But for interviews, he still likes to give a full, detailed answer. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it answers the question without too much excess.

I think his debate style will be short and sweet, trust me.

And Saddleback was NOT a debate, BTW.

[slinkerwink]

9. it should've been approached like a debate though.

[elkston]

17. No. Blame Obama for actually respecting the host and venue. n/t

[slinkerwink]

23. Never think about the host or the venue---think about the audience that's

watching YOU on that stage from their homes. Tailor your message to THEM, not to the guy in front of you.

[tbyg52]

60. Absolutely. The host is *not* the audience. nt

[elkston]

82. Yeah, and to the TV audience, he swayed independents I think.

NO thinking Christian would buy any of McCain's answers.

[FLyellowdog]

4. Huh?

This is what is known as the "dumbing down" of America. It's appalling that we have to be so careful about being intelligent. However, I fear it's true. Good information here http://www.informatics-review.com/FAQ/reading.html

[No Elephants]

5. Are you seriously expecting Obama to read your post here?

[tbyg52]

62. No, but I bet one or more staffers do. nt

[WinkyDink]

70. OFGS. We ALL post in this manner.

[ProSense]

6. I begging you to stop

validating Republican BS

[slinkerwink]

8. you're right. It's all about keeping it simple for the silly people.

We go to elections with the electorate we have, not the electorate we wish for.

[JustAnotherGen]

10. I would agree with your husband

Re: His analysis of the Republicans.

Where I don't lose hope is - well we keep focusing on the two guys that lost.


What about Bill?

Part of the reason why I have ALWAYS found at a gut level Obama to be 'charming' - is his speech pattern. Remind anyone of someone?

No, they are NOT the same. But Bill Clinton has that same affable, I'm just a nice guy who wants to help the American people, MEASURED WORD way of speaking. That, "It's going to be okay, but I need you all to chip in and help."

If Barack can push that SINCERE belief that he is here to serve in the same way Big Dawg did . . . he can sway the people in those debates. Every time McCain says "My friend - Drill Drill Drill," he simply needs to say - "Thanks for the friendship John but I need to uh - Address - uh - how the American people need US to help them right now in this economy. So (moderator) here's uh - what I suggest I would like to help the American . . ."

Following me.


I think for all of the charge of 'elitism' - Baracks speech pattern is very down to earth and on the level with the people. Just my two cents and change for what it's worth.

[dkf]

14. Bill won because Perot split the right.

Then he won because he did a decent job.

[paulk]

37. that is not true

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

[okieinpain]

11. you have to admit the american public needs shit in sound bites.

someone should do a movie where the main character speaks in soundbites all the time. I guess "being there" is a take on that.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. they have. it was called Ronald Reagan. the sequel was

George Bush

the threnody could be John Sidney McCain

be afraid

be very afraid

[Major Hogwash]

12. No shit. It's not like this is rocket science and he has to explain it now. Cut to the chase.

Shorter sentences, and not so many pauses where he takes a deep breath and starts out his sentences with "well, look . . "

Just call them liars and cut to the chase as to why.
I'm not impressed with his inability to connect to people with a 10 second attention span.
The average voter in America uses an 8th grade education, talk to them on their level.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. excellent points, and remember, by definition HALF the populace has an IQ

of under 100

[goodgd_yall]

54. Here, here (or is it "hear, hear"?) n/t

[tbyg52]

61. Since you asked.... ;->

"Hear, hear," as in "listen up!"

[goodgd_yall]

78. Thank you.

I was too lazy at the moment to look it up.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. THANK YOU for that.

pugs 'win' because they've mastered the 'art' of PR/Marketing.

they reduce the complex, nuance, if you will, into sound bites, which are emotionally charged, DESIGNED to short cut rational thinking

this article sums it up best:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bender2.html

please read the whole thing.......

Karl Rove & the Spectre of Freud’s Nephew
by Stephen Bender

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country… We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized… "

So opens Propaganda (1928), one of several strikingly frank analyses of western social psychology written by Edward Bernays. This nephew of Sigmund Freud founded the public relations industry in the United States.

Mr. Bernays lived a fascinating life. He first got involved in high stakes politics when he "warmed up" the dour Calvin Coolidge by arranging the first presidential celebrity photo op in 1928. For the private sector, Bernays engineered a most notorious publicity stunt for the American Tobacco Company, by single-handedly neutralizing the taboo against women smoking in public. He organized a "Torches of Freedom" march down Broadway by ten smoking debutantes during the 1929 Easter Parade. With the help of feminists – some of whom understood the "right to smoke" as libratory – Bernays expertly publicized this spectacle, thus setting in motion the expected stir on op-ed pages across the land.

For Bernays, truth in public affairs did not exist per se. Rather, truth was the product of the "public relations counsel" forging prevailing "public opinion." It should be said that he readily recognized the ethical implications of his work, as witnessed in his later anti-smoking advocacy, after the dangers of cigarettes became known in the late-1950s. He could also be, in his own curious way, a humanitarian – as reflected in his work promoting the NAACP and anti-syphilis public education.

For Bernays, however, the necessity of controlling the public mind was a crucially important matter confronting the better element, a group in which he clearly included himself. In his first work, the hugely influential Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Bernays noted that the establishment of public education and the gradual extension of the right to vote caused consternation among western elites. The use of public relations techniques, then, was a way for the minority to "so mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction."

[ProSense]

16. When did they win using the "'art' of PR/Marketing"?

2000 when the SCOTUS stepped in?

2002 when they were charged and convicted of phone-jamming?

2004 when they tampered with the elections, the DOJ, and suppressed the vote?

2006 when they got their butts kicked?

[Gabi Hayes]

21. nice try. they got CLOSE enough to steal in 00 and 04. who took office? that's all they cared

about then; all they care about now. winning is all that matters to them, and they'll do ANYTHING

the techniques discussed in my post and the linked article were instrumental in those 'victories.' that's why I used the quotes around 'win,' etc.

Do you deny that they work?

I was going to mention that 06 was an aberration in their skein of victories, but since then, they've redoubled their efforts at the PR/Marketing campaign you deride, and the M$M has crawled even deeper in their pockets

I hope the same thing happens that did in 06, but this Palin hagio business has proven that, in the short run, the ovinate news consumers are at least as benighted as they were

the ONLY reason we won in 06 was the pageboy fiasco. they were closing fast in September and dems were on their heels. if that hadn't blown up, STS, in their faces, I think the outcome would have been diffferent

we can disagree on that, certainly, but the fact remains, that since Reagan, the pugs have used the techniques of PR/Marketing/propaganda expertly

did you read that article, btw?

thoughts?

thanks

[ProSense]

27. I'm not a believer is "close enough to steal."

When the GOP suppresses 350,000 African American votes in Ohio, that has nothing to do with close. It has everything to do with an outright theft.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

28. You're right. He who writes history is the ultimate victor

I pray the the full story of the elections of 2000 and 2004 eventually worm their way into the sunlight.

[democracy1st]

58. thanks for posting

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. No, thank you. That was a good read and is relevant to the point I was trying to make. nt

[Jennicut]

18. Um, Gore like won in 2000, am I missing something here?

Oh, he didn't win "enough" to overcome the cheating and fraud in Florida...what a bunch of bs. Kerry clearly was a bit dull but still intelligent. If Obama wins and is still nuanced will you still be saying it does not work then?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. My point was that the Republicans were fairly successful with their framing

of both Gore and Kerry as over intellectual wonky types who didn't understand or relate enough to Joe and Mary Shit. I too believe that both won their respective elections and I will believe that to my dying day, although I don't know if it will ever be acknowledged by history. I think if they had had even wider margins of victory, it would have helped.

For all the umbrage some are taking in this thread, I only suggested a little self-editing. I didn't say dumb down, I didn't say fake being another person - I just said be a little tighter, and be a little more accessible.

[Gabi Hayes]

24. don't waste your time. people don't want to know. did you read the Bender article I linked?

starting with Deaver, Nofziger, etal....actually Nixon's PR boys, among whom was Haldeman (see The Selling of the President, 1968) got the ball rolling, and pugs have perfected their craft over the last forty years

combine that with the abject cooperation/supinity of the media, and things are very bleak looking.....ooops, don't forget massive voter suppression (already underway), combined with vote fraud (already underway)

I can't imagine what they have up their sleeves for the next two months.

dems need to wise up and toughen up

if they don't, they 'lose' again

[KoKo]

30. Yes....what you say is what few here (still left here) want to hear but, it's more truth than

fiction.

I'm hearing stuff from my own circle of folks...and they just are not "getting Obama." For some Palen's candidacy has thrown them back onto their old mantra of "GUNS, GODS and GAYS." The ignorant and manipulated are always amongst us...but they can't understand Obama...they will rally to Limbaugh and their local Mega Church to support Sarah Palin...the ANTI-HILLARY-Obama, "intellectual, elite crowd" that they are so very afraid of. It doesn't matter to these people if they lose their home, die in floods and storms, lose their health care or whatever misfortune strikes them. It's the "will of God" to them and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News is the truth to them. Sarah Palin is like Joan of Ark...and they don't care if she's a woman...(remember Bush does have many Women in his Administration who are very powerful) so to them...it's Repug Women who should be honored ...because they "know their place."

Our Dems in so many ways still never get the warped psychology of those Red State Dems they so actively court. I don't know how Obama can change his whole personality to appeal to them, though. Should we even ask him to be an "actor" just to appease a group that won't vote Democratic...because the RW has made it so odious.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

33. KoKo, I'm not asking him to change his whole personality

or to be an actor. I only suggested he could be a little more succinct in his answers. I want as many people as possible to "get" Obama.

In my own life and writing, I always find that in the first draft, I overwrite. When I go back and edit out every sentence and word that does not lead to my objective, my point is always a lot stronger.

[KoKo]

34. Yes...many have hoped that. Josh Marshall is on a rant about it over at TPM...but

how can he change who he is? Anymore than our Dems could change who they were when they didn't defend Al Gore against the Bushies.

It's "What will be ...will be" with our Dem psychology. But, I understand exactly what you say. Some of thought PART II of Campaign Obama would refine his message ...and he has been doing a little better with some jabs at Palin this weekend. But with Tom Daschle (the "keep the powder dry" mentor of "hand wringing Harry Reid) and his other campaign ops...it seems Obama feels what he is doing will be to "fly above the Repug Clanging pots and Corporate Owned Media ...and that will be what works.

We all hope the "strategy is sucessful" this time. Some of us pray that this strategy is "successful" because four more years of what we've had with more incompetents would be beyond bearing. But, then...it might not be so bad to some Dems..who see it as a chance to gain more power.

[treestar]

80. But didn't they claim Bill Clinton was intellectual and wonky too?

That means you have the brains to do a good job in the office. The last 8 years show the folly of thinking someone you can relate to can do a good job just by gut instinct.

[treestar]

81. Didn't they claim Bill Clinton was intellectual and wonky too?

That means you have the brains to do a good job in the office. The last 8 years show the folly of thinking someone you can relate to can do a good job just by gut instinct.

[redqueen]

88. Wasn't "It's the economy, stupid!" one of Bill's lines?

Maybe mix it up... wonky with short & declarative.

:shrug:

[democracy1st]

59. Gore didn't win if he had he would have been in the White House

or the History Books

[WinkyDink]

72. It helped Bush that Gore had been incessantly called a "liar" by the MSM.

"I invented the Internet".

[ClarkUSA]

25. Yeah, that's the trick! Let's remake Obama in the GOP's image!

WTF? Obama has leading in battleground state poll averages as well as national poll averages for months now.

Are all the PUMAs roaming free today?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

29. Oh my God! That is so laughable.

I'm crying I am laughing so hard. You can't seriously be calling me a PUMA. My support throughout the primaries went Gore, Kucinich, Edwards, Obama and never made a Hillary stop.

In the other thread I posted about Stephanopoulis you called me a concern troll. Since you like to follow me around and call me names, why not search my name and see even a tiny fraction of my posts.

Or even better, why not consider actual discussion of the topics raised instead of trying to shut down people with your name calling?

[KoKo]

31. We have to be prepared that we could lose another election...and keep working...

the Opposition still has so many "tricks up it's sleeve" and the McCorporate Media rules. The Corporations RULE everything.

We might not make it once again. But, we have to keep on going. Maybe this time our Dems will listen to us and go after Voting Reform...they will finally get rid of those crap machines and those who put them in there. Our Dems will finally learn that Tom Daschle, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's STRATGY was WRONG! One more election should show our Democrats that their strategy has been wrong and been corrupted by even those in their own party who promised victory while always pushing this same old "keep your powder dry" strategy...election after failing election...over and over.

[stevietheman]

32. Why couldn't Obama use more basketball analogies?

It seems to me that this appeal to all the sports fans out there. Basketball ain't exactly wind surfing. :)

[kurth_]

35. Simplify and make it black-and-white

Joe Blo's attention span is 10 seconds and he doesn't want to think. He thinks politicians are paid to think for him. So keep it simple: McCain-Palin is BAD, VERY BAD. Obama-Biden is GOOD.

[chascarrillo]

36. Thank you for your concern.

[brentspeak]

45. It's a valid observation

Doesn't deserve the "concern" comment.

[paulk]

38. your husband is right

Obama hasn't learned the lesson of how to win the presidency as a Democrat from Bill Clinton -

You hide how smart you are behind a "good old boy" facade.

There's a lot of people out there who resent what they see as being talked down to.

[JI7]

44. Clinton got less than 50 percent both elections

both Gore and Kerry got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton did the first time he ran. and he had time to prove himself in the 2nd election and still got under 50 percent. and Gore won the election in 2000. Kerry's numbers went up after people actually saw him in the debates.

Clinton also ran at a time when foreign policy/defense issues were at the bottom and the economy was the top issue. the biggest thing that has hurt Democrats since Vietnam has been the defense issue.

and nobody thinks Obama is talking down to them. both of our candidates are intelligent unlike the candidates on the Republican ticket. it's time to stop being scared about knowledge and intelligence and taking pride in being ignorant as Obama says.

[paulk]

47. I don't see how that's relevant to my point

Clinton won, Gore and Kerry lost.

And polling at the time showed that Clinton would have won even without a third party.

--------


Look - it's pretty clear that Obama is still not connecting with a certain segment of the population. I know plenty of people who feel that Obama's style is "talking down to them".

It's not about "being scared about knowledge and intelligence". It's about learning how to express that knowledge and intelligence in ways that don't alienate that certain segment. It's a lesson that Kerry never learned. I, personally, was attracted to Kerry exactly because I appreciated his style of communicating - but, since the election, I've come to understand that it turned a lot of people off. And Obama is making the same mistake, IMHO.

[JI7]

50. it matters because it shows Clinton wasn't so great

it's not like he won some huge landslide. based on how Kerry and Gore did, they would have won if things were more like 1992 also. especially when Kerry ran in 2004 so soon after 9/11.

Obama does connect to people . but he isn't going to do things that Clinton did like support DOMA in order to attract certain voters and then claim it was due to being able to connect better to someone rather than just admitting it was pandering to certain bigoted types.

[democracy1st]

63. He was great we have to be humble and acknowledge that,Now I'm a Obama supporter

and Clinton made choices that totally went against a progressive philosophy ie Nafta,1996 Telecommunications Act etc. But to say Clinton wasn't the best president in our lifetime would be a lie.

[JI7]

64. well, yeah, in my life time Clinton was the best President

i never said he wasn't. and overall he was a very good President.

but i'm talking about campaigns and as you say, even taking into account that Clinton was a very good President he still got less than 50 percent when he ran for re-election.

[wisteria]

39. Did McCain offer anything of substance? Or did he just sound good?

We are not repubs and we do not dummy down our comments and answers. The American public is smarter than that. You mention Kerry and Gore, both excellent leaders. Their elections were different and their supposed losses had nothing to do with being nuanced. This is Obama- he give intelligent answers to questions. McCain simplifies everything and offers nothing.

[wolverinez]

51. Sounding good wins elections, long winded nuance speeches don't.

nm

[goodgd_yall]

55. Obama's big speeches are not the problem

Going one on one answering questions is where he gets too nuanced. Though I'd agree his stump speeches do too.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. This makes me very sad

I've been to European countries during their elections and I've seen political debates and interviews on their television. It's all about nuance and the discussion of every side of an issue.

You're probably right that Americans don't want long involved answers and hate intellectual debates. After all, they responded to a chimpanzee who communicatd with primitive grunts and a bobbing head that panned the room. Deep analysis of every issue is what I like and what I respond to. I think it's probably popular here at DU, but not in most parts of America.

I think the answer is a better school system and the elimination of certain aspects from high school (the dances, the ongoing dating service that high school has become, the sports, the festivals, the clubs) and get a little more serious about molding minds.

It makes me very sad to know that Americans hate the idea of a member of the intellectual elite addressing them. As far as I'm concerned, the intellectual elite is precisely the type of people I want competing for the presidency. I wish your post didn't makes sense, but it does.

[amborin]

41. i agree with your husband

the O campaign has done this repeatedly

a big long ecomomic speech about a month ago was similar....very nuanced, but the points were lost on the audience

Obama's brilliance and nuanced views are wonderful....after WE WIN

right now, we need to WIN and use the strategies that will accomplish this

[smoochpooch]

42. I think Obama should call them out on those kind of responses in the debates ("defeat it" etc)

He doesn't need to change what he does, just call bullshit when McCain gives a 2 word answer to a thought provoking question:

"Senator McCain's answer to evil is to 'defeat it'? That's not a plan. After 8 years of 'bring 'em on' and 'dead or alive', George Bush and John McCain still don't have any real answers, only cliched movie lines."

[TwilightGardener]

43. I agree--Obama likes to reason out everything and explain things in depth

and he uses qualifiers and caveats, while McLoon says "Ugh, me drillum oil" and "Me hate earmarks" and "Defeat evil", and the double-digit IQ crowd says "Ah, he drillum oil, gas cheaper" and "Not sure what earmarks are, but they are bad, me hate them too" and "Evil scary, must defeat". Obama needs to tap into a little of that--a few simple, declarative statements that leave no doubt as to what his position is.

[Duppers]

46. yep, whatever it takes to get those low-info independents

who can't make up their minds on board.

[mzmolly]

48. Astute observation. It would not hurt for Obama to tighten up answers a bit

(where possible) in the debates.

Thanks Phoebe. :hi:

[Captain Lance Bass]

49. Fawkin eh!

dumb down is right.....

hes not teaching constitutional law he's talking to joe-six pack.

morons voted Bush in twice because he seemed like the kind of guy you could have a beer with.

THIS IS who he has to win-over!

[chill_wind]

52. "Ha ha. I mean, c'mon, they must think you're stupid!" works for me. More!!

"Annie Oakley ... packin' a six-shooter". He can paint sharp images in short sentences when he wants to.
I hope he'll step up the art.

[goodgd_yall]

53. I agree with your first 3 paragraphs

I think the term "elite" is merely used to cause divisiveness. It tries to convince Americans that the person termed "elite" thinks they are better than you. Anybody who talks with some insight rather than glib remarks, or prefers a type of food or drink over another, or drives one type of car over another can earn the title "elite."

But I agree that Obama needs to make more direct and pointed statements. I also don't like the laughing-off attitude. It seems to be saying "we all know that's foolish; I can't even take that seriously and neither should you, my fellow Americans." Obama needs to be showing more seriousness in his speeches and interview. This isn't a game, this election; it's a fight that is going to affect the very lives of millions of Americans.

[Raine]

56. TOTALLY agree...

I have noticed this many times with Obama, he over-talks and it makes him look indecisive and wavering. Also sometimes he's says too much, goes to far and makes a mistake because he didn't keep it short. I understand how he thinks and talks cause I'm the same but I'm not a politician either. Obama needs sound bites, he's needs to "cut to the chase" and leave all the indepth points for his speeches AFTER he becomes President.

[Zombie2]

57. I hope he keeps on doin what he's doin....

Republicans call our houses "shacks". McSame has what... 7?... 11?, houses of his own. "They" are the "elite"... their supporters are the "eggheads".

Obama has substance to match the charisma! I listened to his speech at the DNC and his message was extremely clear and concise. McSame is Lame!

McSame/Palin in '08 = Zombie2 in Canada '09

[Two Americas]

65. here we go again

The closer we get to the election, the more chaos and confusion, and the less coherence and clarity.

It is not about "dumbing down" - that idea reflects the contempt that too many Democrats have for the common people, and that is what drives them away from us - it is about speaking directly, forcefully and clearly to the people.

Stolen elections, massive fraud, torture, war crimes, war profiteering, corporate domination of every aspect of our lives, lack of health care, collapsing economy - it is not as though there is nothing to say, it is not as though these things are complicated, it is not as though the people would not understand them or that the people would not support the politicians if they spoke out about them.

But for some strange reason - that the historians will be trying to sort out and explain for years to come - none of that can be forcefully and clearly presented to the people by our party leaders.

It is all off the table.

It is mysterious, and it is even more mysterious that so many of us refuse to face the truth about this and then attack anyone who points it out for being "disloyal" to the team.

[bread_and_roses]

74. On target again, TA. (n/t)

[seabeyond]

67. except both kerry and gore won so odd that they did such poor campaigns, with winning

both had election stolen

[WinkyDink]

71. And that and 5 bucks will get you...?

[seabeyond]

73. this is true, but to go around whining that how they campaign didnt reach the people is bullshit

and not the real issue.

[the other one]

68. The people buy it, the vote counters don't.

Gore and Kerry both won.

[Democat]

76. Gore and Kerry both wimped out!

And Obama may do the same!

Getting the most votes means nothing if you don't get the White House.

[secondwind]

75. funny, I felt the same way about Obama on Stephanopoulos.......keep it simple !!

[MindMatter]

77. The O'Reilly thing was horrible

We have to stop being such pushovers. It is hardball time.

[Clear Blue Sky]

79. Nuance is for a college seminar.

We live in the age of 10 sec sound bites. Clear communication is important, in terms that people can hear on the TV, while doing something else, and still understand it.

I don't want nuance from my doctor or lawyer either. If they are smart and truly understand what they are talking about, they can explain it in simple terms that almost anyone can understand.

[Unbowed]

83. In other words, dumb it down for the stupid, the ignorant and those with truncated attention spans.

Sad. Any studies done lately about the general direction American IQ is going? Just wondering...

[ProSense]

84. Frankly, I think this argument enhances the GOP's ability to justify

their illegal activities







Not sure what the country doesn't get? Are these people going to vote for "100 years war" McBush and "flat earth" Palin?

[seabeyond]

85. fuckin dumb down our kids then all the anti kid people here can bitch more how our kids

are dumb down. ya right. that is what i want as i feel like i am fighting upstream with my kids to instill on them to reject the dumbing down.....

i hear ya

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

86. I never said dumb it down. I said be more concise, be more accessible

Republicans "dumb down" to empty slogans with no substance.

We have the meat, we have the substance, we have the issues and we respect the voter's intelligence.

But I think we have to be able to distill our positions into easily digestible segments.

Shakespeare is great, but many need Cliff Notes.

[Unbowed]

89. More concise is fine, but I'm still worried about the future of our country.

A considerable percentage of the population is too lazy to strap on their thinking caps when it comes to voting. Sure, we can spoon feed them, give them the Cliff Notes version. It's about all we can do for the intellectually lazy, other than slap them silly (which we are all tempted to do truth be told). But it's a damn shame. We used to be a nation that valued learning and now we value instant gratification. Too many Americans don't want solutions, they want a sound bit and a magic wand.

[Midlodemocrat]

87. Completely disagree. I WANT someone smarter than me in the White House.

Bush isn't, McLame isn't, Cheney isn't, nor Palin.

People are impressed with intelligence, which is why so many of us despise the losers in the Bush administration.