Regardless of whom you support in this primary, regardless of who's plan is "better" or "feasible"--whatever complaints you may have against the "other candidate" there is something that we can agree upon regarding November.  The Right wing will be pulling out all the stops to attack the issue of "socialized health care."  Yes, that's right, I said Socialized, but I'll never say it again, and neither should you.  Especially when you bring it up to all of your Republican family and friends...How?

Follow me...

It has become increasingly clear that in the weeks following super Tuesday, Barack Obama is ahead in the race for the White House.  I say this not because of the delegate count or the super-delegate count, or the double secret delegate count.  Anyone who has played chess with someone far better than oneself knows the feeling of having lost the game even when all of your pieces are still on the board.  Someone watching the game might see it as "still close" but you know that your strategy isn't working, because you can't even make your own moves.  You're too busy reacting to the other player.

Obama is winning because of two factors:

1.) He is winning the states that will matter in the general election (which I will only briefly discuss) and
more imporatant
2.) He is controlling the terms of the debate (for Democrats and Republicans).
 

By now, most of us know about the domestic surviellance program being conducted under Bush's Republican leadership. Listening to the testimony of Attorney General Gonzoles before the Senate, I am sure that the AG has failed to convince very many of the Senators that the warantless program is Constitutional. So far, most Americans have trusted this program, and trusted it's neccessity to keep them safe. The response from the conservative base has been something to the effect of, "I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind if the Bush Administration does spy on me. I'm not one of the terrorists they are looking for."

When we hear this, we are outraged.  "How can these people say this while their Liberty is strangled?!?" we ask oursleves.  The answer?  We need to tie this to an issue of concern to the conservative base

I wrote this after receiving a formletter from John Kerry.  Now I couldn't help but notice that, in spite of his occasional longwindedness, he was doing some things right.  He was talking about the Alito nomination from the standpoint of shared American Values-- which means that the message of the people is finally making its way into Washington.  

I asked if he reads DemSpeak because the diaries that I cross-posted here trickled out of sight and into the archives with little notice.  This doesn't hurt my feelings but I linked to my previous diaries because I think they're worth thinking about.

So...do you think that Kerry reads my blog?

Those are battlefields where we are testing our issues.  This is about the "big picture."  This is the second in a series of "speeches" I am writing to hopefully inspire someone to start getting the Democratic Party's message out to the public in a way that is framed to chip away the support from the "swing voters" who voted Republican in the last two decades.

We need to stick the Republican Party with Bush.  He should personify the Republican Party on every issue.  He is weak, and we need to advance that weakness in the public view, framed under our terms, using our language, and putting them on the defensive for once.  

The values that we should be promoting are capitalized.  This is the essence of our party.  Forget details right now.  This is how we prevent swiftboating, this is how we counter the Mighty Wurlizter, this is how we take back public discourse and show our candidate as a better choice.

Last night I was listening to the radio.  I don't have a TV so my news comes from NPR.  One word stuck in my head as it was repeated over and over and over:  Confirmation.  They called the interview a "Confirmation hearing."  Seems reasonable enough, right?  What would be the outcome of a "Confirmation Hearing"?  It's kind of hard to imagine Alito being rejected, isn't it?  

From this day forward, NEVER say "Confirmation.  Don't do it!  Sorry to "shout"-- I don't mean to be rude, but DON'T DO IT.  

What we need is another term for the hearings...Below the fold, I have some ideas to discuss...

No, I don't mean take away my free speech, I mean use my speech, for free...please. Any Democrat, or Democratic candidate may use this speach...please use it.  

Last night I sat down and tried to figure out

1.) How we can respond to the "War On Terror" frame that seems to be excusing Bush and his party for every malodious thing they do.

2.) How we can link Bush to the Republican party in such a way that every thing he does wrong sticks, not just to him, but to his party (this is going to be important in November, and again in 2008 so we need to start now).

3.) How we can begin to fit our stance on NSA Spying, the War (in Iraq/on terror), and eventually on Alito and the Environmental movement Together in a "worldview" that makes sense to a majority of American voters.

The first fruits of this thinking was the following essay that is written in the form of a speech...Which my dream candidate would have already given, but which is not too late to deliver:

Stay with me: it's 2:37, and a thought popped into mind while I was writing a comment on another thread.  I promise I will make it all make sense, or I will die trying.  I am a "white" male, 24 years old and a Democrat since Dukakis (I was seven and my single mother managed to convince me she was undicided so I could convince her to not vote for the Real George Bush).  I am also an ex-vegetarian who aspires to a life in that last bastian of liberalism:  the perpetual blue state called academia.  In short, I am the antithesis of Republican.  At first glance, my uncle could not be more different, so the conversation we shared will hopefully provide an interesting perspective...

So The other night I went with my Grandad (who is celebrating his 90th birthday as of the 26th) to see Syriana.  He said he couldn't follow it, and asked me "who were the good guys?"  He couldn't understand that the good guys were being played by Sir Not Appearing In This Film.  I love him even though he hasn't voted for a democrat in his entire life.  Ever.  That's tough for me, but he's my grandad.  Tonight, at Christmas dinner, I brought up the "I" word...

In 1998, Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis appeared opposite eachother in The Siege, a film about New York falling victim to terrorist attacks, and the US government responding by announcing marshal law.  In the film, Hubbard (Washington) makes a number of eloquent remarks to the general (Willis).  One of my favorites was this:

Come on General, you've lost men, I've lost men, but you - you, you can't do this! What, what if they don't even want the sheik, have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!

Yesterday, the headline on every news channel I tuned in to was that Bush "took responsibility for leading us into Iraq based on faulty intelligence."  My response:  So What?  This is nothing we didn't already know, so why is he getting all this press for it?  The answer?  TheRight Wing Agenda is re-claiming the debate, once again on their terms...

I am not a Republican.  I don't plan on being one.  But if the Progressive Community is going to get anything done, we need to cooperate with them...some of them.

I recently read a blog which dicussed Cheyney's continued insistance on the use of torture-- and of the neccessity of America's "right" to do so.  This diary is not about that.  Not entirely.  I think that this could be an excellent opportunity...

Most of us are at least somewhat familiar with the concept of framing by now.  A frame that is wildly popular in speach today revolves around the war in Iraq, and what we plan on doing now that we've committed troops and the public opinion continues to drop.  How do we LEAVE the damn place?!?

While the term "exit strategy" seems to make sense, it's really just making sense of the claims that the democrats have no vision, are unable to deal with the rigors of war, and have reversed themselves on this issue.  We need a NEW FRAME for this issue.  I would like to propose the following:  "Follow Through"