I'd like my fellow Kossacks to consider something when they write their posts and entries here: What is the message you're sending, and what is the goal you're pushing for, and how do they mesh?
Do you want a Democratic President, or a Democratic Party majority in Congress on both sides? We can get into your complex argument, but at the end of the day, the first emotional kick the reader gets comes from the basic message you start with.
The title comes from this idea of mine: that at the end of the day your strongest message is a summary of what your article says. There's a difference between an article that says "Obama failed to break the Republican filibuster." and "Republicans get in the way of X."
Each sentence can speak about the same thing, without contradiction or contrafactuality. However, each sentence puts the weight of responsibility and criticism on a different side. Which you might choose depends on your goal.
But what is your goal? One sentence blames Obama for not breaking the filibuster. The other sentence blames the Republicans for doing the filibuster.
One is more useful to us as Democrats than the others. The internet encourages people to vent their feelings, but venting can mean hitting anything within reach with the angry stick. Not productive. I have no problem with people expressing their emotions, but we are adults, and adults can manage their emotions, and keep ill-advised words and actions in check.
Not that this society encourages that. This is not a society whose rules and customs encourage long-term or in-depth thinking. "You're taking too long" seems to be today's motto. Like it or not, many people are that shortsighted, so if you say something wrong, you won't get a chance to explain, often enough.
Ironically, though, a little thought, a little pause taken to consider your context, your goals, and what might be of strategic value can make for a more effective rhetoric. Hence my suggestion. The sentence summary is your through-line, which is what actors talk about in terms of the meaning and motivation of their actions as the character.
I believe that when we write in support of our ideas, a few considerations are in order.
First, consider the world beyond rhetoric, beyond politics first. Political parties and organizations are filled to the brim with catchphrases and rules for what can be said that make sense for others who share such sentiments. Otherwise, they are the things people anticipate you will say, as a Democrat, as a Kossack, as an Obama-hater, Obamabot, or whatever. Fresh perspectives turn on fresh nerve ending. That is part of what you want to do. You need that emotional charge that comes from the unanticipated argument. That will rarely come if you are recycling previous arguments, or relying merely on what is standard within your group.
It always helps to consider dynamics, folks. Where are people now, where do you want them to go, and how do they get there? This is the second important consideration. What do you want your target audience to do? Do you want them to elect one guy, or another? Do you want them to shift blame onto the Republicans, or onto the Democrats? Do you want them to simply muddle around in the middle?
Finally, You need to consider the response, the counterattacks, and not with a mind to building a perfect immunity to any attack, but rather to defusing the response. Nothing you say will go unchallenged. That is the fantasy of many a debater, but the the truth is, the argument never stops when you win it, if you win it to begin with.
We're never going to win these political fights at one go. We need to be prepared to rush back to the front lines again and again to confront these people.
Most importantly, we need our responses to be effective towards the right people, and in the right ways. We cannot afford to fight ourselves and our opponents at the same time. We have to be clear on who we are there to outtalk, and not simply outtalk ourselves.