Jerome Bettis and Franco Harris.  That's serious stuff in Steeler Country...
From the Pittsburgh Post Gazette blog:

"Sen. Barack Obama emerged from Soldiers and Sailors with Franco Harris and Jerome Bettis and a color-challenged version of the Terrible Towel. Mr. Obama waved overhead a blue towel emblazoned 'Here We Go America; Here We Go.' Cheering crowds that lined O'Hara Street waved back with their own copies of the towels that had been distributed by campaign aides. Mr. Obama held a football but didn't attempt to throw it, thus avoiding the risk of an embarrassing YouTube video. Then the Bus got on the bus along with the candidate."

I think one of the reasons the Republicans have been so successful (I mean in terms of winning elections!!!) in recent years (yes, excluding 2006 congressional seats) is their way with words.

It occurred to me this morning after reading the post about Johnson and global warming.  I remembered seeing some guy on the Daily Show awhile back, talking about how the Republicans have successfully put phrases into the American psyche that seem to have taken hold more forcefully than their counterparts.  I couldn't remember who it was though.

So I went back to look this up, and it turns out the guy was none other than everyone's favorite poll man, Frank Luntz.  He literally wrote the book on the subject: "Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear".  

He was the architect of the attempted switch from "global warming" to "climate change".  Ironically, he did this to help Bush get elected b/c they knew the focus couldn't be on the environment, but Luntz later distanced himself from Bush and acknowledged that we were contributing to global warming.

Sure, some of his attempts at painting a different picture with words have been laughable: Redefining "Orwellian" as "to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening...and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever."  Per Wikipedia, the more common connotation of the word: "the political manipulation of language, by obfuscation; doublethink; revisionism of history; or references to 'Big Brother'."

His complete willingness to manipulate serious policies and differences is quite often scary.  "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth...the facts are beside the point."

Here's another one: "Energy Exploration".  Yeah! That's exactly what we need.  Until you realize he's talking about drilling for oil.

The Republicans have been winning this war of words for years.  Perhaps it's because of their penchant for Orwellian logic, and blatant disregard of the facts.  Some more examples of "framing the argument": (Some have been more successful than others, and not all are out of the mind of Frank Luntz.)

Pro-life vs. pro-choice?  Pro-life gets the better end of the stick on that one: it's a more potent and vivid image they paint.  

"Illegal aliens" vs. "undocumented workers". 

Social Security? No, Retirement Security.

Estate Tax vs Death Tax.

Globalization/Capitalism?  No, A Free Market Economy.

Tort reform vs. "Lawsuit Abuse Reform".

School vouchers/choice vs. Equal Opportunity Education.

Tax relief, partial-birth abortion (no such medical procedure!), small government, strong defense, etc, etc, etc.

You want a frightening insight into political rhetoric and the almost unbelievable willingness of the American public to buy into it?  Read Luntz's playbook, here.

Anyway, in looking for information on this topic this morning I stumbled across some interesting articles.  Luntz has been around for years, helped Gingrich frame the "Contract with America" back in 94, and we all know him as a friendly face on Fox News.  Apparently, the Democratic party has in recent years found a counterpart to Luntz: George Lakoff, who wrote, "Don't Think of An Elephant."

This article I found particularly good, as it makes the points both for this type of semantics and against it, and discusses Lakoff's role.  And here's another good one. 

Marc Cooper wrote a scathing criticism of Lakoff's book in The Atlantic back in April of 2005, in which I believe he misses the point entirely.  Not only does he spend most of his time criticizing the Democrats as a whole rather than the book or Lakoff's assertions, he writes it off as some kind of a search for a magic pill to cure all that ails that Democratic party.  In fact, he spends so much time raving about lattes and Volvos it's hard to see where, if at all, he takes issue with the actual book.  (And when did Volvos get such a bad rep?)  His biggest criticism seems to be that the Democrats don't know what they stand for, that the party is divided on priorities and has no coherent platform.  That argument seems particularly irrelevant in this election, where it has been widely noted that the policy differences and priorities of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are quite similar.  You can argue that point, but I'd still say that the Democratic party is more united on principles at this point than the Republican party, which seems to be splitting on three lines this year: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and McCain's moderate conservatives.  We saw that in the last three candidates to be standing in the Republican race.

My point is this: I don't think this is the silver bullet, the answer to all our problems, nor do I think it's the pathway to the White House.  But it is most certainly a factor.  Only 20% of Americans read blogs regularly, and I'd wager a guess that an even smaller number spend as much time on them as some of TPM's regulars.  A lot of our country still gets their news from newspapers and the major cable news.  And it is an unfortunate fact that talking points, sound-bites, get boiled down to fit between commercials for Viagra and Clorox or condensed to fit the left column under the fold.  

When I heard that Obama had made the comment about his grandmother being a "typical white person," I cringed.  No, not because it became suddenly clear to me that he is a closet racist, but because I knew it would be the sound-bit for the feebleminded Fox News for that cycle.  

The most striking quote from the article on Lakoff was this: "I can describe, and I've always been able to describe, what Republicans stand for in eight words, and the eight words are lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values," Dorgan, who runs the Democratic Policy Committee in the Senate. "We Democrats, if you ask us about one piece of that, we can meander for 5 or 10 minutes in order to describe who we are and what we stand for. And frankly, it just doesn't compete very well. I'm not talking about the policies. I'm talking about the language."

In any event, it's interesting to think about just how much words matter, and not just in epic speeches like Lincoln's and FDR's, but in everyday politics.  

I won't be the first to say that amidst the rush and roar of the Democratic Primary, most news of McCain seems to slip by, and the only two things I've really seen focused on are his statements on the economy as well as his views about Iraq.

I've stumbled across some things that seem at first glance disturbing to me on other aspects of his foreign policy.  I'll be the first to admit though, I don't have a great grasp of the intricacies of foreign policy, so I'd love some perspectives on this stuff.

It started when I stumbled across this piece from Accuracy in Media (conservative "media watchdog").  It talks about his views on Kosovo, which aren't different from the Democrats (from what I understand); but put in context with his seemingly imperialistic views on foreign policy it seems cause for concern.  

From what I understand it has been Russia and China who do not want to recognize Kosovo as an independent nation, and as two of the five countries with veto power I assume this presents a problem.  

Then I read this article from Arizona on his foreign policy and Russia; and this article from The Moscow Times, which certainly doesn't have a favorable headline.
Then here,  Putin is essentially pushing his way into the fight for oil (When is it not about the f#$%ing oil!!).

A brief summary of Obama's thoughts on Russia can be found here.

All these things seem rather disturbing to me, but I guess I'm having a hard time putting them all together to form a coherent opinion on what America should be doing.  Thoughts?

I couldn't find this detail in the Gallup poll's survey methods.  I'm wondering if they are polling only Democratic voters who have voted in the primaries (or plan to do so).  Anyone know?

It occurs to me that if this is the case, the numbers would be really irrelevant. I mean, even with the huge turnout in the primaries, the total votes tallied, according to RCP, including Michigan and Florida, is 28,326,687.  John Kerry got over 59 million in the general in 2004. 

I also suspect that voter registration will still be going up in the run up to the general.  I would be willing to bet that some people who didn't register in time for the primaries will be doing so for November. 

Just a thought.  Anyone know about their sample though - primary voters or all registered voters?

It's the only way I'll cure my TPMCafe addiction.

I have seen many claims of “character attacks” thrown about both in the posts here and elsewhere.  The specific one that spurred this post was a comment in response to a post about Senator Clinton’s description of her landing in Bosnia, which has been generally refuted by photo, video, and personal accounts of the trip.  The comment made in response to the post was something along the lines of “another character attack by the Obama camp...”

Well, here’s the thing about character attacks.  I agree that attacks on certain character traits have no place in the political discourse or discussions of whose better suited to the Presidency.  But people take into account a person’s character when voting.  Therefore, a discussion of certain traits seems to me, to have it’s place.  It should be perhaps a little more respectful and restrained from name-calling than it has been in certain places, but it goes straight to the heart of the electability argument if we recognize the fact that certain character traits are in fact something voters take into consideration when voting.  

A Gallup poll was taken in March of 2007, asking Americans what they wanted in the next President.  I might note, this polls was taken across partisan lines.  The characteristic at the top of the list, with 33% of respondents rating it as the most important, was honesty/straightforwardness.  Second, with 16%, was leadership and strength.  You can see the rest of the results here.

I realize this is an old poll, but I think it’s results would likely be fairly comparable at this point as well.  

Another Gallup poll taken more recently (albeit before the Wright controversy) found that only 44% of Americans find Hillary Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy”, while 63% said the same of Obama and 67% of McCain.  Some might say this is because Senator Clinton has spent more of her life under the scrutiny of public spotlight, and this is no doubt true, but it doesn’t change the current state, and it won’t change before November.  Obama and (hopefully McCain’s!) numbers will almost certainly go down as well, but it is much easier to slide downhill than to climb up.  I happen to think there are things Senator Clinton could do to address this, but whether or not she actually will, I’m just not sure.  

This has been a consistent problem for Senator Clinton.  You can chalk it up to unfair media coverage, more years in the public eye, etc, but it’s still the way it is right now. In New Hampshire, 32% of voters found Obama to be the most “honest and trustworthy”, 26% said the same of Clinton.  She WON that state.  In Mississippi, 52% found Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy”, 70% of voters found Obama to be the same.  

I’m not saying this is the only or largest criteria upon which voters make their choice.  But I do believe it plays a factor, perhaps even more so in the current political environment, coming out of 8 years of Bush and Cheney lies.  

In the 96 election, an exit poll conducted by CBS found that more than 5 million people who voted for Bill Clinton did not believe he was “honest and trustworthy.”  On the other hand, a CBS-NYT poll found that 65% of respondents stated that they believed that “Bill Clinton cares about the needs and problems of people like you.”  (Bob Dole - only 49% in that area)

James Bovard, in “Freedom in Chains”, discusses these polls and makes the conclusion that “The fact that Clinton appeared to “care” was more important in many voter’s minds than the impression that he was dishonest.  

My point is, I do think that Senator Clinton COULD overcome these numbers in two ways: if she would do certain things that would combat this image of untrustworthiness, as well as by the fact that she always scores high on polls asking if the candidate “cares about people like me.”  

The reason people jump all over the Bosnia thing is because it goes right to the honesty argument.  What’s particularly frustrating for me is that she has no real reason to exaggerate that.  She does have relevant experience in foreign policy, her efforts abroad are part of important experience.  But getting up there and saying you were running for cover under sniper fire just makes no sense.  She doesn’t need to exaggerate her experience, it can stand on it’s own.  And then the picture and video of her being greeted on the tarmac by the little girl, with Chelsea by her side just completely kills the claim, because the lie completely overshadows the truth.  Now, more people know about her arrival there than what she was actually doing there. 

I’m going to dissect the Bosnia thing here a little bit because it helps to shed light on the bigger picture.  When she went to Bosnia in March of 96, it was only a few months after the peace agreement that formally ended the war.  The country was devastated from the war, high losses of life, genocide that killed thousands.  When she went there, it was the first time in recent history that a First Lady visited troops in a hostile zone.  She visited the outposts in Bosnia, something that Bill Clinton himself hadn’t done.  She met with the acting President and the general who headed the ground efforts.  She toured bases on the frontlines and visited with the troops.  She met with local leaders to hear their personal stories describing the aftermath of the war.  And yes, she participated in the USO show with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow to boost morale and thank the troops.

But one sentence.  One sentence overshadows that whole story.  A story which, I might add, holds its own merits, at least for me.  But then the sentence: “But instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”  And then the video.  She’s walking head up, where she greets several soldiers and the little girl with the poem.  (I might add - the story of the trip she relays in her own book is different from the most recent one.)

Sigh.

I am not a Clinton-hater, nor have I ever been.  I thought Bill was a good President (although I think he could have been a great President if he hadn’t spent so much time embroiled in scandal - and while you can blame some of that on the Ken Starrs of our country, surely some of the blame goes to him as well.)  If you had asked me a year ago who I would be voting for this election, I would have told you Hillary Clinton.  At that point, I didn’t know much about her proposals, and knew even less about Obama.  Once I learned more about each of them, their proposals, listened to them in both speeches and debates, I chose Obama.  

But part of me remains frustrated.  I don’t hate Hillary, but I’m frustrated with her.  I have always thought she was a strong, intelligent, and capable woman, and I just can’t understand why she didn’t run a different campaign.  The Bosnia thing is just an example of this: why wasn’t the actual experience enough? I for one, don’t need a mental picture of her dodging bullets to think her capable of being Commander in Chief.  And what it all goes back to is the biggest difference, in MY mind, for why I voted Obama rather than Clinton: he strikes me as more honest.  You can dispute that and point to discrepancies in his record if you like.  But I’m just trying to explain my feelings on the matter.  They both have discrepancies, both have moments that seem less than truthful, but it seems to me that she has more.  Maybe I’m not fully informed, but I’ve done my best to closely follow just about every detail of the campaigns since Iowa.  

I will also say right now that there have been moments during the campaign where I have been disappointed and frustrated with the Obama campaign as well.  I don’t expect perfection from anyone, I don’t think either of the candidates will be walking on water, achieving world piece, or ending world hunger.  But there have been times when I thought he could do better, so you can certainly point out his mistakes, omissions, etc - but trust me, I have recognized those as well.

I think this post has digressed multiple times now, but it all goes back to this point I was originally trying to make: I think discussions of a candidate’s honesty should not be dismissed as “character attacks”.  We should (myself included!!) try to stay away from name-calling and “Pants on Fire!” type rhetoric, but if we can manage to keep it at a mostly civil level, I think discussions on the candidates’ character is well within our rights.  

It’s tricky, I know.  Our first instinct when presented with a “character attack” is to immediately respond with a counter example on the other candidate.  I’m sure this point won’t change any of that.  But I try to make an effort to listen to the reasons why Clinton supporters don’t want to support Obama.  At the very least, it helps us to understand the nature of the campaign to come.  I have made an effort not to defend Obama, his campaign, and his supporters when I honestly think they are wrong.  I have also made an effort to defend the Clintons, her campaign and her supporters when I think they are right.  Case in point: I think McPeak’s description of Bill Clinton’s comment as “McCarthyism” is utterly idiotic.  I thought the same thing of Geraldine Ferraro’s comments - contrary to popular opinion, I didn’t think they were racist - just stupid.  I also think it’s hard to sometimes sort out who exactly did the “accusing” first - it seems to sometimes be the media.  (Example: it was a pundit on MSNBC who, to my eye, first made the “subtle” suggestion that the whole passport thing might be the work of the Clintons)

Ok, well now that this post has rambled long past the length I originally intended, I'll just cut off here...