FRAMESHOP: January 2008

« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

January 30, 2008

Frameshop: Thank You, John Edwards

I understand why John Edwards had to pull out of the race, but I am deeply saddened by it. On behalf of the entire Frameshop community, I extend a sincere 'Thank you!' to the entire Edwards campaign.

As a sign of deep gratitude for his work, I offer the entire text of his speech today from New Orleans.

FULL TEXT OF JOHN EDWARDS ADDRESS IN NEW ORLEANS

Thank you all very much. We're very proud to be back here.

During the spring of 2006, I had the extraordinary experience of bringing 700 college kids here to New Orleans to work. These are kids who gave up their spring break to come to New Orleans to work, to rehabilitate houses, because of their commitment as Americans, because they believed in what was possible, and because they cared about their country.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

This journey of ours began right here in New Orleans. It was a December morning in the Lower Ninth Ward when people went to work, not just me, but lots of others went to work with shovels and hammers to help restore a house that had been destroyed by the storm.

We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us. We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.

We came here to the Lower Ninth Ward to rebuild. And we're going to rebuild today and work today, and we will continue to come back. We will never forget the heartache and we'll always be here to bring them hope, so that someday, one day, the trumpets will sound in Musicians' Village, where we are today, play loud across Lake Ponchartrain, so that working people can come marching in and those steps once again can lead to a family living out the dream in America.

We sat with poultry workers in Mississippi, janitors in Florida, nurses in California.

We listened as child after child told us about their worry about whether we would preserve the planet.

We listened to worker after worker say "the economy is tearing my family apart."

We walked the streets of Cleveland, where house after house was in foreclosure.

And we said, "We're better than this. And economic justice in America is our cause."

And we spent a day, a summer day, in Wise, Virginia, with a man named James Lowe, who told us the story of having been born with a cleft palate. He had no health care coverage. His family couldn't afford to fix it. And finally some good Samaritan came along and paid for his cleft palate to be fixed, which allowed him to speak for the first time. But they did it when he was 50 years old. His amazing story, though, gave this campaign voice: universal health care for every man, woman and child in America. That is our cause.

And we do this -- we do this for each other in America. We don't turn away from a neighbor in their time of need. Because every one of us knows that what -- but for the grace of God, there goes us. The American people have never stopped doing this, even when their government walked away, and walked away it has from hardworking people, and, yes, from the poor, those who live in poverty in this country.

For decades, we stopped focusing on those struggles. They didn't register in political polls, they didn't get us votes and so we stopped talking about it. I don't know how it started. I don't know when our party began to turn away from the cause of working people, from the fathers who were working three jobs literally just to pay the rent, mothers sending their kids to bed wrapped up in their clothes and in coats because they couldn't afford to pay for heat.

We know that our brothers and sisters have been bullied into believing that they can't organize and can't put a union in the workplace. Well, in this campaign, we didn't turn our heads. We looked them square in the eye and we said, "We see you, we hear you, and we are with you. And we will never forget you." And I have a feeling that if the leaders of our great Democratic Party continue to hear the voices of working people, a proud progressive will occupy the White House.

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

And I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.

There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account, she struggles to be able to do it, but she knows it's the moral, just and right thing to do. And I spoke to some of the people who were there and as I was leaving, one woman said to me, "You won't forget us, will you? Promise me you won't forget us." Well, I say to her and I say to all of those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.

But I want to say this -- I want to say this because it's important. With all of the injustice that we've seen, I can say this, America's hour of transformation is upon us. It may be hard to believe when we have bullets flying in Baghdad and it may be hard to believe when it costs $58 to fill your car up with gas. It may be hard to believe when your school doesn't have the right books for your kids. It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard.

But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you, once again. And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible.

One America, one America that works for everybody.

One America where struggling towns and factories come back to life because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil.

One America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college. They will be honored for that work.

One America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.

One America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care.

One America with one public school system that works for all of our children.

One America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end. And brings our service members home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.

And I want to thank everyone who has worked so hard – all those who have volunteered, my dedicated campaign staff who have worked absolutely tirelessly in this campaign.

And I want to say a personal word to those I've seen literally in the last few days – those I saw in Oklahoma yesterday, in Missouri, last night in Minnesota – who came to me and said don't forget us. Speak for us. We need your voice. I want you to know that you almost changed my mind, because I hear your voice, I feel you, and your cause it our cause. Your country needs you – every single one of you.

All of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause, we need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you. Don't turn away, because we have not just a city of New Orleans to rebuild. We have an American house to rebuild.

This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians' Village. There are homes to build here, and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf. The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead. It goes on for day care workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country. And the work goes on for two hundred thousand men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans, who go to sleep every night under bridges, or in shelters, or on grates, just as the people we saw on the way here today. Their cause is our cause.

Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.

Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible, because it's time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one.

Thank you. God bless you, and let's go to work. Thank you all very much.

Out of the running, but by no means forgotten.

Thank you, John Edwards.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 30, 2008 at 03:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Frameshop: Rudy's Flop Shows '9/11' Can't Win Anymore

Of all the words Rudy Giuliani used in his Florida concession speech last night, '9/11' was not one of them.

The omission of his signature leitmotif from his only major televised speech was not not oversight, but a harbinger of big change in American politics. Finally, after 7 years of Republicans exploiting 9/11 to win elections and pass policies, Giuliani's failure in the Presidential race will likely put that that strategy to bed.

Thank goodness for small miracles.

At first, Giuliani's '9/11' campaign theme seemed to be working. Repeating '9/11' over and over again, he raised more money than other Republican candidates and shot to the top of the polls.

But then Giuliani's prospeccts went sour as the media and voters soundly rejected the stategy.

No single moment is to blame, but there were incidents that seemed to sum up the depths of Giuliani's cynical use of 9/11.

At one point in his campaign, Giuliani's had so thoroughly saturated his message with talk of 9/11 that his supporters organized a 'Donate $9.11 to Rudy' effort. Rather than creating momentum, news of Giuliani exploiting 9/11 to raise money and win votes was the beginning of a long stretch of criticism and ridicule. That stretch never ended.

Curiously, by moving 9/11 to the center of his campaign bid, Giuliani invited journalists and citizens alike to comb through his record with excruciating detail--more so than for any other politician including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

What emerged was not pretty.

While claiming status as the hero of 9/11, Giuliani was slowly transformed into the man whose policy decisions most likely cost lives. Even worse, the more Giuliani campaigned on 9/11, the more rescue workers and families of survivors began to express their public discomfort and anger towards him.

In the end, Giuliani's decision to make 9/11 the one and only distinguishing feature of his presidential bid failed to transform him from a mayor into a statesman. Instead, Giuliani became recognized by many as the man who cashed in on the greatest tragedy in recent American history.

As a direct result what Giuliani did in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, '9/11' became the punchline in political humor--the ultimate one-liner about the depths a politician will plunge to scare people into supporting a candidacy.

Giuliani's omission of '9/11' from his concession speech in Florida, last night, brought a well-earned respite for the memory of those who died and suffered as a result of the attacks seven years ago.

Right-wing pundits will no doubt continue to cash in on 9/11 by using it as political fodder on talk shows and in political books. But it is unlikely that 9/11 will ever again become the theme for a winning political campaign.

I suppose we have Rudy to thank for that.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 30, 2008 at 09:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 26, 2008

Frameshop: The Crisis of Identity Politics

Like it or not, we are all identity voters now.

For better or for worse, the media competition between the top three Democratic candidates has become a contest of identity rooted in questions of gender, class, and, race. The Democrat who wins the nomination will do more than give voice to the party platform and move on to challenge the Republican nominee, The Democratic nominee will also become the face of an America that found the courage to move beyond--something.

The identity frame of in Democratic nomination has been there from the start.

From the first moments that Hillary Clinton made it clear that she wanted to be President, her gender has been an issue. From the first lines of Barack Obama's historic 'Audacity of Hope' speech at the DNC convention, his race has been an issue. From the first steps of John Edwards' first campaign for President, his class has been an issue.

Each has been faced with certain paradoxes that have played out in the media. Clinton has benefited from the mantle of 'first woman president,' but has had to wrestle with sexist of weakness. Edwards has enjoyed his status as a people's president, but been dogged with accusations of class duplicity. Obama has inspired people with the hope of fulfilling the promises of Martin Luther King, Jr., but been smeared by racism both covert and, at times, overt.

Identity politics bring out the worst in American society because identity politics are about overcoming the worst in American society. As a result, the Democratic campaign is now very emotional, very ugly, and very urgent.

No matter who earns the 2008 Democratic nomination, the media story will be about identity politics in America. As a result of what happens to the Democratic party, the story will be that America has leaped over one social hurdle, but tripped on two others.

If Clinton wins, we will be the nation that beat the gender gap, but tripped on racism and classism. If Obama wins, we will have faced our history of racism, but avoided classism and sexism. And if Edwards wins, we will have embraced a new era of economic justice, but shielded our eyes from the problems of sexism and racism.

No matter the outcome, one of the big problems with a campaign anchored in identity politics is that it cannot lift up some without making others feel slighted. Identity politics victories are bittersweet. They fill us with great hope, but sow seeds of frustration and even cynicism.

Which identity should triumph this time around? Of all the possible outcomes, which is best for all? What is more urgent for this moment in our history?

Those are not just questions that lead us to pull the lever next to one candidate's name versus another. Those are questions that foment arguments, divide households, and end friendships.

Thus, while the Republican Party engages in a somber debate about tax cuts, military budgets, and immigration, the Democratic Party is locked in emotional debate about justice, equality, and truth.

What a difference we now see in the cultures of these two grand institutions the define the range of options for American voters.

Should this be the choice moving forward? Does America benefit from a presidential election that revolves around identity politics?

Not so much.

When identity frames American politics, the result is not a great strengthening of our system, but a weakening of it. When shot through the lens of identity, politics reveals divisions and fissures that we might not otherwise see. Those divisions are there just the same, but when we shine the light of politics on them we see and feel them with an saccharine intensity. Pain that we had worked through returns. Memories of betrayal resurface. Hope of hard-sought unity dissipates. Identity and election campaigns in particular are the nitroglycerin of politics.

Whether or not a vast majority of the electorate can speak clearly about the problems of identity politics, they sense them in their gut and react to them accordingly. It may be that the Democratic campaigns make short term gains by playing to identity politics, but in the long run the result will be very bad for the Democratic Party.

When faced with the choice between four years of identity politics in the White House and four years without it, voters will likely choose the latter. Winning the Democratic nomination by playing to identity, in other words, could very well be the Democratic nominee's key step towards losing the general election.

We may all be identity voters, in other words, but voters need not accept the situation. As voters, we can reject the choices put to us by that small handful of people running primary election campaigns. As voters, we can all insist on a more pragmatic, less divisive frame for American politics.

We can refuse to be drawn up in the rancor of accusations.

We can refuse to engage the futility of the blame game.

We can insist on talking about the core challenges we face as a nation: a failed foreign policy, a global environment in deep crisis, an economy in need of a transition overhaul.

Even if the election campaigns we see on TV are discussing identity issues instead of the pragmatic challenges we face, Americans can still drive the debate in the direction that matters most.

There are many social hurdles that we still need to face as a nation. And we will continue to work hard to do so. But for now, we must work together to make sure that our national politics does not collapse into a crisis of identity politics.

Let's make sure that does not happen.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 23, 2008

Frameshop: La Union de Campesinos Respaldan a Clinton

If you're having trouble understanding the headline of this article, then chances are you are also not following one of the biggest stories of the 2008 Democratic primary season.

Yesterday (Jan 22) in a packed college gymnasium in Salinas, California, the United Farm Workers endorsed Hillary Clinton for President (the Spanish as listed on the UFW web site: "La Union de Campesinos Respaldan [sic] a Clinton"). With more than 27,000 members, the UFW will be a welcome addition to the Clinton ground team as they compete for The Golden State--the biggest prize of all on Tsunami Tuesday (Feb 5). Chances are good that whoever wins California will also win the Democratic nomination. In recent polling, Clinton holds double digit leads on Obama and Edwards, her two top rivals in the Democratic field.

More important to Clinton than the number of UFW members, however, is the iconic value of the UFW in U.S. politics. The UFW is, quite simply, the historic symbol of the Latino civil rights movement in America.

Started in California's central valley by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta in the 1960s, the UFW was the Latino counterpart to Martin Luther King, Jr.s civil rights movement in the south. With its predominantly Latino membership the UFW continues to be as much an anchor of Latino identity in America as it is a driving force for the rights of farmworkers.

In an election where the Obama and Clinton campaigns have raised equal amounts of money, the UFW endorsement signifies Clinton's considerable advantage over Obama and Edwards amongst Latino voters in California and elsewhere.

With few exceptions, the English-speaking media has not really picked up on this story.

Writing for Salon.com, Joan Walsh recently shed light on the difference way that Latino voters think about Clinton and Obama. Following an Obama campaign Spanish-language ad critical of Clinton in Nevada, Walsh quoted the following observation about the two candidates as offered by Dolores Huerta:

[Huerta] argued that Clinton has a "cultural, political and social relationship with the Latino community, which Senator Obama does not have." Latinos call Clinton "Hilaria," Huerta said, adding derisively that they call Sen. Obama "Como se llama?" (as in "What's his name?")

(read the full post, here)

Given how inaccurate polling has been thus far, whether or not a candidate has an affectionate nickname in the Latino community might just be one of the better indicators of how well Clinton is doing in California. And in a week where Barack Obama has already showed himself to be more than a little annoyed by the tone of the debate, the moniker "What's his name" is likely to throw even more cold water on his campaign.

As for John Edwards, the UFW endorsement of Clinton will likely put him in a very difficult position. Having framed his campaign as a movement for the rights of working middle class and poor Americans, Edwards must now be very careful in how he criticizes Clinton. If ever there was a union that lived the principles Edwards is espousing, it is the union that just endorsed Clinton.

In a Democratic primary season already marked by heightened emotions, the UFW endorsement of Clinton will likely result is some activist soul searching amongst a fair number of Edwards and Obama supporters. Or maybe not.

Whatever happens, Americans can expect to hear an iconic phrase return to American politics, but this time with a whole new meaning. When Cesar Chavez and his followers shouted 'Si se puede!' ('Yes, we can!') in the 1960s, it meant 'yes, we can organize!' My guess is that 'Si se puede' will become a rallying cry at Clinton campaign events in California and more than a few newspaper headlines.

'Can we win the nomination for Hilaria?!'

'Si se puede!'

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 22, 2008

Frameshop: Can Obama Get Back On Message?

John Edwards was the clear winner of last night's Democratic debate, but the big story is how far off message Barack Obama has gone since his victory in Iowa. While Obama continues to stir hopes for voters, the impression he gives increasingly on the national stage is of a candidate caught in the old-school, finger pointing blame game. With Super Tuesday just a few weeks away, the challenge Obama now faces is substantial. Despite his lead in South Carolina, Obama must find a way to lead the debate again with his 'new tone,' or he will likely go down fighting in the very style of politics he seeks to retire.

'Hope and Change' Becomes 'Blame'
Like it or not, the Clinton campaign has knocked the Obama campaign off the core theme of 'hope and change.' This change is significant because the 'hope and change' theme took over the entire political debate in the 24 hours after the Iowa debate. That is no longer the case.

Despite trumpeting his ability to bring a 'new tone' to politics, last night's debate showed an Obama who scolded, complained, and pointed fingers. His performance last night raises a serious question without a clear answer: How can a Presidential candidate bring change if he is so easily thrown off message by his opponents?

Having dominated previous debates with his quick wit and charisma, Obama's rhetoric and body language last night gave the impression of a candidate stuck--like everyone else--in old-school mud slinging politics.

The ability to throw Obama off his message may be a Pyrrhic victory for Hillary Clinton's campaign. In the end, voters not persuaded by Obama's message of change may jump to Edwards rather than Clinton. Nonetheless, Clinton has managed to open up a significant chink in Obama's armor by hitting on the difference between 'rhetoric and reality.'

Indeed, that Obama came off as so defensive last night was a good example of how quickly his central campaign promises have been tripped up by his opponents.

For their part, both Clinton and Edwards gave solid, but not inspiring debate performances. As usual, the word that came to mind after watching Clinton's in last night's debate was 'prepared.' While Obama struggled to get out subtle distinctions in long sentences--Clinton spoke in sharp, clear, if not over-produced talking points.

Edwards Wins, Clinton Benefits
Edwards gave a solid performance, but had noticeable difficulty breaking into the discussion. Over and over again, Edwards deftly reframed the debate to questions of solving poverty, healthcare, and economic progress. More than the other two candidates, Edwards connected the debate back to the ideas and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., on whose federal holiday the debate was taking place. But it is unlikely that Edwards will gain considerable ground in the polls as a result of his performance. Having carried South Carolina in the last Presidential election prior to becoming John Kerry's running mate, Edwards has struggled to stay within 15 points of Clinton and Obama.

Edwards won the debate, therefore, but it is Clinton who will reap the reward.

For his part, Barack Obama now has a herculean and unenviable political task before him. Waist-deep in the very kind of politics he claims he will end, Obama has to show the American people that he can indeed change the tone of politics. Obama must not only get back on message, but he must bring the entire debate back on board, too.

Focus and Frame
Obama may well have a point that the Clinton campaign is taking his comments out of context to score political points. Nonetheless, all political campaigns use this tactic, and the chance of him not facing this in the general election is slim.

But the larger problem may be Obama's inability to keep his campaign message focused across the full range of campaign events.

In particular, while disciplined and on message in his campaign speeches, Obama has shown a tendency to wanders off message in press interviews, often bringing in statements that are vague and even contradictory.

In a recent interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama made a statement praising Ronald Reagan and criticizing the Democratic Party. The statement was immediately criticized by the Clinton campaign. In fact, the problem with Obama's comment about Reagan was less that he praised the icon of the Republican Party than the inability of anyone to understand what Obama meant.

When questioned by Clinton on his Reagan comment, Obama clarified by saying that Reagan should be noted for his ability to convince Democrats to vote for policies they did not think initially that they would support. The clarification only made the original statement more vague.

In a primary season dominated by 5-second sound bytes, Obama's tendency to stray into points that require long explanation has become a campaign liability. His ability to win the Democratic nomination depends on whether or not he can stop blaming Clinton and get back to framing the debate.

In the end, the debate last night was as revealing about the state of the Democratic primary race as it was contentious.

Despite the lead Obama holds in South Carolina, he has quite a few sleepless nights ahead of him.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack

January 19, 2008

Frameshop: Lolcat Iraq Policies - McCain

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 19, 2008 at 04:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 18, 2008

Frameshop: The Pragmatic President

The Reno Gazette-Journal has done something absolutely remarkable. They have conducted hour-long interviews with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, making them available for viewing on their website.

These interviews are outstanding examples of American journalism. What we are able to see in these interviews has never quite been revealed in other formats. Both Clinton and Obama are thoughtful, creative thinkers. When they speak about the challenges we face, they each speak in a voice of authentic leadership.

They are very different, as we can see. But they both come across as pragmatists.

In his interview, for example, Obama reveals himself as a largely dispassionate, open-minded pragmatist.

In her interview, Clinton reveals herself as more impatient pragmatist.

What we see in these long conversations are two candidates who put pragmatism--getting things done--ahead of ideology.

Fascinating.

Go take a look.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 17, 2008

Frameshop: Lolcat Iraq Policies - Clinton

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 17, 2008 at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Frameshop: Romney Caught In Lie About Lobbyist

In a heated exchange with an AP reporter, Mitt Romney vehemently insisted that lobbyist, Ron Kaufman, was "not paid" to advise his campaign. It was an ugly exchange.

Romney said that Ron Kaufman, a senior partner at the lobbying firm Dutko Worldwide, was just an unpaid adviser and friend--insisting on this point several times.

However, a simple search of Romney's recent campaign expense filings found these two entries:

Dec. 3, 2007 - a payment of "$300" by the Romney campaign to "Kaufman, Ronald."
Oct. 19, 2007 - a payment of "$100" to "Dutko World Wide."

Oh, well. I guess Ron Kaufman did get paid--something, anyway--by the Romney campaign, as did Kaufman's employer--a lobbying firm.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 17, 2008 at 03:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Frameshop: No Chuck, No Luck For Huck

Golly gee, it was fun having Mike Huckabee in the race, wasn't it?

I mean, the Republicans are just so dull this year. Mitt Romney is about as interesting a stack of white paper (unlined). John McCain has less fizz than a glass of stale beer (ptew). Fred Thompson the candidate is less interesting even than Fred Thompson the actor (zzzz). Even Giuliani is not really fun after the initial shock wears off (9/11). But Huckabee? He had charisma. He had Mark Twain style common sense. And he had--Chuck Norris.

Huckabee still has Chuck Norris on the trail with him, but lately Chuck has been less visible in the national media. And that's too bad. Without Chuck in every TV clip, Huck's chances seem to diminish.

Many pundits are saying that Mike Huckabee threw away his chances to be the Republican nominee by bringing in too much religion. That may be true. In a recent campaign event in Warren, Michigan, Huckabee promised to change the Constitution so that it speaks explicitly about upholding "God's standards" rather than lining up to some "contemporary view." Here is the full quote:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

- Mike Huckabee, Jan 15, 2008

That statement is a problem for Huck. No doubt. Most Americans do not want the Constitution to be change into a religious pledge. But the real hiccup in the Warren stop was not just the statement about the Constitution, but the absence of Chuck.

Two weeks ago, Mike Huckabee soared to the top of the charts because he framed the Republican side of the campaign with humor and common sense. Chuck Norris on the stump with him was a critical part of that story. He was thinking outside the box and once Americans got a glimpse of it, they loved him.

While Giuliani, McCain, and Romney were competing to win the 'most violent foreign policy' award, Huckabee was charming crowds with one-liners and easy to swallow populist morality.

Huckabee was winning because he was thinking beyond the stale, old, gray, old, dull, and old Republican play book (old). Instead of scaring voters, Huckabee was making them laugh. Instead of amassing tens of millions of dollars, Huckabee had amassed tens of millions of evangelical voters phone numbers. Instead of TV spots maligning the Democrats, Huckabee made TV spots with Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris! Who would have guessed that the most interesting TV ads of the whole campaign (so far) featured barrel-chested, infomercial maniac, Texas ninja Chuck Norris? Not me, that's for sure.

Huckabee's 'Chuck Norris' ads projected three straight forward ideas about his early campaign. First, he had no money. Second, he had one heckuva sense of humor. Third, he had no money.

But the ads did something else, too, that few national level politicians have the chutzpah to try in today's poll-driven election industry. The Chuck Norris ads made fun of the culture of TV campaigns. And it worked. In an era when so many people are cynical about the political system, Huckabee seized the momentum and ran with it.

Fast forward to Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and now South Carolina.

Chuck Norris is still on the trail with Huckabee in South Carolina, but he is no longer as visible in the media as he was in those first few days after Iowa. Instead, Huckabee's campaign stops began to look more and more like the kind of religious fringe material that the old-guard GOP claims he is. Huck sans chuck was no longer framing the TV message effectively. His opponents began framing him.

Once that happened, his image as a voice of common-sense and humor went out the window. The TV pundits stopped seeing what Huck wanted them to see and just started looking for the moment when Huck talked about religion.

Who can blame the media and his opponents, really? Huckabee does have a strong, and pretty disturbing, desire to talk about religion. Some of his strongest supporters connect to him through their Christian identity. But those Christian voters were only one part of why Huck succeeded. His luck with the general GOP electorate was tied up with his charisma and his humor. Chuck Norris factor was a huge part of that initial momentum. Chuck turned Huck into great political theater.

The Huckabee campaign schedule in South Carolina shows quite a few stops with Huck and Chuck, but it may be too late. It could well be that the time to really keep Chuck on the stump was in the crucial test states of New Hampshire and Michigan--the time to keep pushing the envelope when all the pundits were predicting that Huckabee did not have a chance.

Or, perhaps, the Republican Party was never really going to break the mold this year and nominate a charismatic, common sense populist from Arkansas. Huckabee could have been a fund diversion prior to the real match up between Romney and McCain. The outcome is uncertain, but one thing is clear: Without Chuck on the stage with him, Huckabee's luck runs out fast.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 16, 2008

Frameshop: Lolcat Iraq Policies - Obama

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 16, 2008 at 04:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Frameshop: Lil' Allen Franken

The new Al Franken for Senate ads are out and this one is a goody. I went to college in Minnesota, so I have a soft spot for the land of a thousand frozen lakes.

We all knew Franken's ads would use humor, but this one hits all the right notes.

A slam dunk for Lil' Allen.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 16, 2008 at 01:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Frameshop: Like It Or Not, It's 'Likability'

Philosophers and scientists often say that "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best." Last night's presidential debate in Las Vegas showed nothing if not that the positions between the three Democratic candidates are pretty much equal. That means that the explanation for who won the debate is very simple: likability.

Most big media pundits will probably be too self-important to dwell on it, but there was only one candidate on stage last night who seemed likable from start to finish. There was only one candidate who sat comfortably, who spoke at length without coming off as loud or tense, and who consistently made the room erupt into giggles--that's right, giggles--including the moderators and the other candidates.

The winner? Barack Obama. Because he came across as more likable.

If you feel somewhat deflated by this conclusion, you are probably not alone.

Barack Obama is an outstanding candidate for President--whether or not he will make a good nominee is not the point. He would. They all would.

The point is that, for some reason, accepting the fact that a Democratic candidate wins a debate because he is more likable is something that makes a large number of Democrats squirm uncomfortably. 'Likability' as a deciding factor in a presidential election is something that many Democrats do not like very much.

There are three main reasons for that.

First, Democrats like to think of themselves as good leaders because they are smart. Of course, 'smart' and 'likable' do not always conflict with each other, but--they often do. Barack Obama, a former law professor, is probably one of the smartest people in the country if not the world. And just like the other candidates, last night, he answered questions with a level of acumen that made the Republican debates seem like Reader's Digest versions of American policy. But since everyone in the debate demonstrated that they were smart, it was not Obama's brains that distinguished him. It was his smile, his comfort in his chair, and his one-liners.

Second, Democrats remember that George W. Bush was elected twice on the idea that he was likable. Even the most ardent critics of George W. Bush's policies admit that he was the candidate with whom Americans imagined themselves enjoying a beer. Barack Obama has more in common with a ham sandwich than he does with President Bush, but still--Obama distinguishes himself time and time again as more likable.

Third, Democrats know that the GOP smear machine likes nothing more than to beat their opposition by using turning strengths into weaknesses. Al Gore and John Kerry were both 'likable enough' before the GOP smear factories got a hold them. By the end of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, however, a plurality of voters thought Gore and Kerry were mechanical robots programmed to lie and hate Americans. If Democrats nominate another candidate who is likable at the start, many worry, the same thing will be happen. It may be difficult to imagine Barack Obama smeared as unfriendly and divisive, bu the Republicans have people on staff who are expert at bringing about exactly that kind of transformation in their opponents.

Democrats like to be seen as smart, they don't like how Bush got his nomination, and they worry about the GOP smear machine.

Given all this, why are so many Democrats pushing for a candidate who is the most likable?

We could fall for all the tit-for-tat about experience, discrimination, and so forth, but none of those explanations pass the 'simplest is best' test. The simplest explanation as to why democrats are pushing likability is probably: TV.

Despite all the political buzz about blogs and citizen participation changing politics, most Democrats seem to tacitly agree that winning a Presidential election comes down to how well your candidate does on TV.

Nixon's five-o'clock shadow, Ford's tumbles, Dukakis' tank helmet, Gore's sighs, Kerry's stiffness: if the TV doesn't love you, history has shown, neither will the voters. As long as TV has been a player in presidential elections, the political parties have secretly wished for a TV candidate. Sometimes, not so secretly.

Barack Obama is a great TV candidate. He is, as the Hollywood moguls like to say, a 'natural.' The camera loves him. The other candidates are not so fortunate.

Oh, sure. There are plenty of more complicated reasons that proved themselves in time. But like it or not, Barack Obama won the debate because he was more 'likable' than all the rest. Even the other candidates seem to like him.

Like it or not, the presidential election is about 'likability.'

Again.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

January 08, 2008

Fameshop: Obama Versus Right-Wing Pundits

According to right-wing pundits, Barack Obama is a communist who hates America and wants the terrorists to win.

Color me convinced. How about you?

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 8, 2008 at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 03, 2008

Frameshop: Obama And The 'Balance' Frame

Iowa picked Barack Obama out of all the Democrats running for President and by doing so, they endorsed the 'balance' frame that Obama used to define the election and, potentially, the future of the country.

While all three top tier candidates campaigned for change, only Obama framed the election through a logic of overcoming imbalances: in our economy, foreign policy, and in our politics. Clinton's 'experience' frame held the terrain briefly. Edward's 'economic justice' frame gained real momentum in the last week. But it was Obama's narrative about striking a a balance that resonated the most.

Obama's use of the 'balance' frame is a significant development, but one that the media has largely overlooked. Pundits talking about Obama's victory in Iowa mostly tossed around the vague concept of "change," claiming that Obama represented "change" more than Edwards and Clinton (despite the fact that every candidate in the election was talking about "change"). "Balance" is the frame that Obama has used effectively, however, whether journalists are able to see it or not.

The story does not stop there. Obama's 'balance' frame had the most appeal with young voters who turned out overwhelmingly for him on a cold night in Iowa. This development defies the common stereotype of college students. When we think of political activists on college campuses, we think of passionate idealists, holding signs, protesting. The Obama followers are passionate and they hold signs, but they are clearly driven by a desire to move beyond a the politics of discord. Young people following Obama find in his message of 'balance,' a 'hope' for the future that holds the greatest possibility for them.

On the right, Mike Huckabee won Iowa with a combination of Christian morality and economic populism. But Huckabee is a very good campaigner. His message is not what the GOP power structure claims. Huckabee has a gift for connecting to people. He is the most 'authentic' candidate of them all.

If the general election becomes a contest between Obama and Huckabee, Americans will see something they have not seen for decades. It will be a campaign between a man calling for economic reforms and Evangelical norms competing against a man calling for national reconciliation and social justice. It will be 'authenticity' vs. 'balance'; 'awe shucks' vs. 'let's sit down together'; 'I am one of you' vs. 'if I can do it, we all can do it.'

A brave world that would be. A brave new world, indeed.

But for now, it's just Iowa. New Hampshire is five days away and after that Nevada, then South Carolina. The GOP candidates may be too far behind Huckabee to catch him, but Clinton and Edwards have plenty of steam left in them.

Congratulations to the Obama and Huckabee camps.

Next up: The Granite State.

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on January 3, 2008 at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack