This is a quick-hit diary to remind Kossacks that Democracy for America is holding another one of its famous "Night School" sessions today, July 17, at 5:30 pm eastern time.

More information is after the jump.

I am a great believer in courtesy.  I like a touch of formality in my dealings with others.  Grace and charm beguile me.  

I always try to put myself in the other guy's shoes and understand their point of view.  I am quick to assume that lack of information can be rectified, and misinformation can be corrected, but such attempts must always be accompanied by gentle, thoughtful probing of the source of the faulty meme, and must never be done harshly.

I have recently begun to question this kinder, gentler approach.

Today brings news that voters appear evenly split between Obama and McCain when it comes to their plans for ending the war in Iraq.

I see this as evidence of two distinct problems:

1.  McCain continues to benefit from a sycophantic media willing to extend him an advantage on all matters military, historical misjudgments notwithstanding, and;

2.  Obama has been unable to frame his arguments on Iraq in such a way that draws a stark enough contrast with his opponent, and in such a way that places them in his larger context of hope and change.

This diary focuses on the second problem, as I think the first is largely outside our control.

The subtitle Why you can not understand 21st century politics with an 18th-century brain seems exceptionally appropriate in this case!  I know there has been much already written on this, but a careful analysis from Lakoff's perspective may help us sort through some of this stuff.  I'll give it a try.  I have been writing in parallel with Lakoff for some time now trying to recast some of his ideas in the context of complex systems theory applied to understanding the mind and how it operates in terms of world views.  There is much overlap between our ideas since much of what I have put together stems from the interplay of Lakoff's teachings and the complexity theory of Robert Rosen.  The best place to get a taste of Rosen's revolutionary approach is his book:Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life (Complexity in Ecological Systems) (Paperback) published by Columbia University Press in its "Complexity in Ecological Systems" series.  Look below the break and I will give you a quick synthesis and apply it to the infamous cartoon.

The title is ironic -- I haven't turned Republican and I still think Bush is the worst President ever.  But we can learn very valuable lessons from him, lessons about leadership and how to accomplish our (quite different) political objectives.  Think about it -- here is a President with the lowest approval ratings ever, with over 80% of the country believing his administration has put America on the wrong track, with the opposition party controlling both houses of Congress, and with the majority of the country opposing his policies on virtually every issue -- who continues to get everything he wants on every important issue, from FISA to war funding to tax policy.  Obviously he knows something about winning political fights that Democrats have forgotten.  I had hoped Obama was a change of pace, a candidate who knew how to punch and counterpunch, but his recent actions make me fear otherwise. You don't prove how tough you are by apologizing and retreating, and I'm afraid that Obama is doing too much of both in his attempt to "run to the center" -- not necessarily a bad political strategy if skilfully executed, but disastrous in its current form.

More below the cut.

McCain quips...

"Arizona may be the only state in America where mothers don't tell their children that some day they can grow up and be president," McCain quipped Sunday.

...and Obama quips too...

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black," Mr. Obama quipped.

Quip is a snooty word that you read all the time but never hear in actual conversations.

Today I am wondering whether quip is a racist word.

Google News search:
"McCain quipped"  325 hits
"Obama quipped"   2 hits

Apparently the news media feels that McCain's bon mots rose to the level of a quip, whereas Obama's did not. When Obama says something witty, he merely jokes.

Google News:

"McCain joked" 71 hits
"Obama joked" 329 hits

Advertising and marketing works best when simple slogans are used to reinforce an image or perception.  If these simple slogans get associated with the entity, the entity wins on that point.

We see this in advertising where companies like Walmart and McDonalds adopt simplistic slogans which are the exact opposite of what their produces provide.  But it works because it goes unchallenged.  If challenged, they'd go under.

The same holds true in politics.  The actual views of Conservatives are so far out of the mainstream that they do not even qualify for 3rd party status, much less top two status.  But the major reason for their survival is the ability to use simplistic sound bites (which if true most people would agree with) and have a compliant media regurgitating them.  That must change.  

George Lakoff is someone who I think has much to contribute to the political strategy arena.  He is going to be far more effective than Karl Rove in the long term.  His blog on The Huffington Post:  The Mind and the Obama Magic is very helpful as we see Obama become an increasingly controversial candidate here in our own ranks as well as elsewhere.  In my own work, I rely heavily on Lakoff's ideas so I would like to discuss this piece in some detail below the break

If you were to guess which of the following publications this graphic came from which would you choose?

Time
New Republic
Reader's Digest
Parade Magazine
National Review

The answer and some , maybe, hopeful news on the flip..

As the weeks have turned into months, and the election draws ever nearer, it has become all-too-apparent what strategy the Republicans will be using this election cycle.

They can't run on their own policies: their policies have been the ones that have taken this country perilously close to the cliff's edge.

They can't run on their track record: see above.

The only tactic they have left is to throw enough shit to see what sticks.

However, they can't do it out in the open. The word 'Republican' has become as unsellable as a Ford Pinto (or in today's economic climate, a Hummer). So the Conservatives and Libertarians and Republicans (whatever they're calling themselves nowadays) are going to the shadows. They have to pretend to be Independents and Liberals and Progressives, and then throw their shit in a passive aggressive manner.

And that, gentle readers, is Concern Trolling. How do you spot it and combat it? More, below the fold.

Odd. Barack Obama has shown him self to be well within the current view points of Democratic Senators - and I ain't talking Bayh, the Nelsons, Conrad, Pryor or .. [edited] one of the more conservative Democratic Senators, Jim Webb as the markers for where Obama ends up in the political spectrum. [Webb is not a liberal, folks.]

Every thing Obama has done to [gasp!] "shift his position" has still placed him well within the group of Harkin, Feingold, Leahy, Levin, Schumer, Cantwell, Reed, Democratic centrists all .. and yet some people here appear to be egregiously disappointed ..

Every move Barack makes is being scrutinized, torn apart and attacked. I am flummoxed by the viciousness of the attacks being made. I'm scratching my head wondering if I entered a parallel universe.

As most every one here knows, I'm way off to the left. Bernie Sanders, and the House CPC is my idea of where the country should be headed. Sometimes, even they are too 'conservative' for me.

So why am I not screaming bloody murder that 'Obama has abandoned me'?

As much as I'd like to cut loose and seek some comfort by writing a fun, apolitical diary full of cats, rainbows and unicorn farts, I just can't do it today. I'd like to see if I can do my part in alleviating some of the tension on this site as some of its users are in full-on panic mode and are consequently saying some very foolish things.

There's quite a few things wrong with the now commonly held assumption that Obama is "moving to the center." Some people say he's doing the politically expedient thing and selling we lefties down the river. Still others insist he was never that progressive to begin with, and has always been a centrist Democrat.

First of all, a person's political ideology is hard to identify in the first place because it's so very subjective. One person's center is another person's far-left.

Second, how is it that we Kossacks, who are normally so sharp when it comes to detecting a manufactured media outrage story, are suddenly so credulous? Are we now listening to the very serious people who are telling us that our nominee is moving to the center?

And finally, even as we ask ourselves whether Obama is moving to the center, he is continuing to fight for progressive ideas -- even though we may not notice it in our current state of limp-noodle mumbling and hem-hawing.

Here comes the swiftboating.

You knew it wouldn't take long for the right wing hate machine, the swiftboaters, the Republican Party, the McCain surrogates, right wing talk radio, the conservative bloggers, and the corporate media to make the FALSE CHARGE that the Obama camp or those associated with the Obama camp were somehow attacking McCain's service in Vietnam.  We've done no such thing and neither did General Wes Clark.

And we need to call out every single person, whether they are a media personality, a politician, or an McCain staffer who attempts to unfairly smear Wes Clark and tens of millions of Americans.

Call this one a misadventure in framing.

If you're like me, a little piece of you dies every time a Republican or even a self-styled Independent Democrat engages in a framing device such as substituting "Democrat Congress" for the correct "Democratic Congress." The goal of this wordplay is to both emphasize the "rat" in Democrat in the hopes of tarnishing a political party as untrustworthy and, more sinisterly, to try to lessen the usage of the word "democratic" in political discourse.

But sometimes framing has some unexpected results.

Of all the crazy ways to choose a candidate to support, this is perhaps the most inane yet. In today's edition of the Potomac News, a local newspaper serving Northern Virginia, Sandi Teets took some time to examine what surely will become the most important focal point in the upcoming Presidential election - the origins of a name.

That's right, folks. Forget about the war, economy, or even health care for that matter, since as Ms. Teets points out, the names of the two respective Presidential candidates tell more about them than any policy  position or voting record ever could.

Thankfully for all of us, Ms. Teets did the extensive work necessary, "it took me about a week to get to the root origins of each name and I did my research", and submitted her discoveries in a now Potomac News published Letter To The Editor. Her findings, you ask?

This is the first in an occasional series of contests to see who here can come up with the best way to frame aspects of John McCain and his campaign for a not-always-entirely-alert public.  (If there is a second entry in this series, I'll be surprised and pleased.)

Right now on the Rec List is an excellent diary by David Dayen talking about how the media has failed to cover the McCain FEC campaign finance problems and how the Obama campaign is finally fighting back.  The discussion in that diary and comments is excellent.  What I'd like to see more of is determining how to get this not-entirely-simple idea across to the public.  That, compared to the simplicity of the "Obama broke his pledge to take public financing" storyline, is not so simple.

So: come up with your pitch, and if you can improve on something someone else posts -- such as by adding graphics (which, for the general public, probably doesn't mean LOLcats) -- then great, do that too.  I would love to see us have contests like this with many issues -- and many races.

The prize?  People think you're a genius and you may help win the election.

In the discussion over how much and how visibly Obama should reach out to American Muslims, most people seem to gravitate towards one of two positions:
    1- It's a matter of principle, there can be no compromise.
    2- Politics come first, let him get elected, then he can reach out.

But this is missing a major point. How convincing is Obama when he says we can talk to the Iranians, if he's avoiding patriotic, non-fundamentalist, American Muslims here in the US?

A lot of the major issues in this election cycle involve Islam. The war. Oil prices. Iran's possible nuclear ambitions. Civil liberties. Terrorism. That's a long and heavy list. And every time we discuss one of those issues, like it or not, we're taking a position on Islam. And every time we don't take a clear stand we give other people (read: Republicans) an opportunity to define what our relation to Islam is. Is this really such a good idea?

It is time for democrats to discontinue the use of republican terminology and define our opponents with appropriately descriptive language. Flip-flopping is not the problem, in fact, quite the opposite: change is good. We must emphasize the issues behind the changes and the positions themselves, rather than imply evolving thinking and revisiting positions is a negative.