I really like what he said

Trisha — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:11:28 -0500

I really like what he said here:

"Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have
some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, becausea lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

But he is going to have to do a bit better if he's going to win this. I'm sure he's capable of it.

from my blog: 12 Things You Can Do To Set a Healthy Example for Your Kids - can you think of any others to add to the list?

How to talk Democrat and win

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:05:23 -0500

In the aftermath of the “Celebrity” ads and the Rick Warren Saddleback Church show, one thing is clear: McCain got the memo. When asked if there is evil in the world, McCain unequivocally stated, “defeat it.” Bam!! Obama gave a longer answer, no lede, no soundbite, which at first blush, can come across as uncertain. Obama does “um” and “uh” a lot, and I have to admit, it bothers me sometimes. But read Obama’s answer to Warren’s question about evil:

"Does evil exist?" Warren asked Obama. "And if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?"

Obama: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see
evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We
see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has
to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the
things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as
individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task,
but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we
see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have
some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because
a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying
to confront evil.

Sounds pretty convicted (and religious) to me. But it is a longer, more complex answer than McCain's. Absorbing it quickly requires changing habits for me and for many other listeners. For so long, presidential politics has dealt in heuristics, those little mental shortcuts we all use in order to make sense of the world: flag pin=patriot; soundbite=courage of my convictions. “Evil”? “Defeat it.”

Leading Conservative blogger Erick Erickson writes, "McCain did well because he understands the issues close to the hearts of the people at Saddleback. Obama did poorly because he does not understand those issues and only built up the 'I'm a man of faith' narrative to hide that fact."

I’d say McCain won because he used the right soundbites. And this is what we’re up against as Obama supporters. McCain is getting daily lessons in persuasive, appealing Republican jargon. Gas prices too high? “Drill here. Drill now.” McCain did well at Saddleback because he has been coached in the slapshot language of the Conservative Christian movement. Obama asks us to think. He did it in his famous race speech in Philadelphia and he certainly won that day.

Obama’s speaking style is challenging, and I fear will handicap him. But perhaps, just perhaps, it’s the right way. Drew Westen has one of the best columns I have ever read on how Democrats should talk about abortion rights. Contrary to the popular wisdom that Democrats speak too intellectually while Republicans get to the heart of the matter, Westen says “the answer doesn't lie in "dumbing down" our messages. It lies in ratcheting up their emotional intelligence.”

I excerpt the whole quote of Westen’s example here, because I think it’s an excellent example of how Democrats can use reason and engage thought to win. Here is what Drew Westen says Obama should have said about abortion to the Saddleback audience:

No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. We need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. We are all united in the belief that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, starting with instilling in our children both the values and the knowledge to make good choices. And we all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and shouldn't be an option late in pregnancy except when the mother's life or health is in danger. I could go on and talk about how misguided I think our currently policies are that deny access to birth control to women and teenagers in our inner cities, which does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty, stop young people from getting an education and fulfilling their God-given potential, and make it more likely that they'll have children before they're ready to be good parents. But the main point I want to make is that in this country, we don't force one person to live by another person's faith. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.

Westen notes that the core of the abortion debate is a core American value: “That as long as we do not all share the same religious beliefs, the government has no business forcing one person to live by another person's faith. It speaks to religious freedom and government intrusion, two themes usually associated with narratives on the right but that should be central to a progressive narrative on abortion.”

I remember how I felt after Obama gave his race speech: I felt I had been brought in as an ally. A leader I respected asked me to try a little harder. It’s a good feeling, and one we have been trained not to expect from our politicians. Most, and especially “the new John McCain,” just give us an easy answer and expect us to move on, satisfied.

BlogHer - How to talk Democrat and win - Comments

I really like what he said

How to talk Democrat and win