One of the (many) amazing aspects of the traditional media coverage in the last couple of months is how so many have fallen into step in asking: "Why can't Obama win working-class white votes?"  We see this again in the post-primary coverage of Pennsylvania, with the question variously rephrased as "Why can't Obama win white Catholic votes?" or "Why can't Obama win with older white women?"

But as far as I have observed, and as recently noted in a diary here,...no one seems to be asking Hillary:  "Why can't you win with African American voters?"  

I think it's time for us all to get off the Republican--and now Clintonian--talking points, which frame foreign policy only in terms of war and crisis. This activates fear, very powerfully.  Clinton just said today that since McCain will be the nominee, the election will be about national security.  ***But of course, it doesn't have to be.***  It's time to change the framing.  Obama needs to activate another emotion to counter Clinton's use of fear: pride in being an American, and hope that America can both lead the world and be a good global citizen in the 21st century.

there has been a good deal of public head-scratching about the passionate response some people have to obama and his campaign, often accompanied by an underlying skeptism that paints obama support as not-quite-reasoned, insubstantial, or superficial.  the worst examples of this, of course, are the assertions that equate obama supporters with cult members, children following the pied piper, etc.

this hadn't touched my life personally until i had a conversation with a friend the other day, who asked me "what exactly do people think they are signing up for, as obama supporters?"  she didn't say it, but there seemed to be some question in her mind as to whether obama supporters can really justify their support, or if they are just caught up in a (mindless) "obamamania."  (this is conflated, of course, with the misapprehension that he only offers inspiring messages but not substantial policy prescriptions)

i tried to "be the change i want to see" and, instead of responding to her sharply and in the moment, i took a few days to consider her question seriously rather than dismissing it.  

here is the email i wrote to her:

it appears from the nation and huffingtonpost that MoveOn members are deciding whether to hold a virtual primary

I have noticed a widespread tendency to talk about "the Democrats."  This is a problem--because when we lump all Democratic politicians and organizers together, we lose. Differentiation is the key.

More...

In the past days much ink--and ones and zeroes--have been expended in reaction to the "cartoon controversy," without, in my opinion, shedding much light.

So I was pleasantly surprised to come across an article on Salon.com by a Danish ex-pat, Jytte Klausen, at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/

For those of you without a subscription, a brief overview and two choice quotes--on the flip.  It is worth waiting through the ad, however--

Remember right after 9/11, when Christine Todd Whitman, then-chief of the EPA, said that the air was fine, and everyone should get back to living and working in lower Manhattan?

Remember when we all thought that was ludicrous?

Turns out we weren't the only ones.  

the details on the flip.

NY Times today has a substantial story, reporting on its investigations into the rumors of violence (rape, shooting at helicopters, murderous hordes) in the days after Katrina, rumors which, as you well remember, caused rescue operations to be halted, in some instances.  Guess what they found?  Yep, you got it.  Most of those stories were wildly exaggerated, or simply untrue.

This information needs to be disseminated; as far as I can tell, this story is being lost in the whirlwind of Roberts's confirmation, Delay's indictment, and the continuing devastating quagmire in Iraq.

story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/national/nationalspecial/29crime.html

Kerry was just on Meet the Press.  Russert asked whether Iraq today poses more or less of a terrorist threat than when Saddam was in power.  When are our people going to get on message:  "There Were No WMDs; There Were No Terrorist Ties"?  The assumption on which this question rests HAS to be challenged.

Of course, Iraq is more dangerous now than it was--because it was not a real threat to us before we invaded.  The whole rationale for war--that Iraq was a threat--has been blown to pieces.  We have to reiterate this!

how do we gain control of the discourse?

The Power of Nightmares

This television series, broadcast by the BBC, posits that the threat posed by al Queda is much less than the general public has come to believe...  That the neocons extended both the Cold War threat and the terrorist threat in order to consolidate power and make changes they sought, by reducing resistance among a terrified public.

I have not seen the series myself, nor am I familiar with the producer, Adam Curtis.  Does anyone know anything more about this series--I haven't heard a word about it, but maybe it was discussed here already, earlier.

You can see the BBC description of the series here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

and watch a small-screen copy of it at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm