Don't Think of a Maverick! Could the Obama Campaign Be Improved?

Throughout the nomination campaign I was struck by how well the Obama campaign was being run, especially how sophisticated the framing was. I was heartened that my five books on the subject might have had a real effect. But recently I have begun to wonder. It looks like, in certain respects, the Obama campaign is making some of the same mistakes of the Hillary campaign and the Kerry and Gore campaigns.

The Dayton speech on education had fine policy, but was the first really deadly dull Obama speech I've heard. It started out with lots of numbers. True, but dull. And he is promising more of the same policy wonk speeches. He's right that we are facing serious realities, and he's right to say what he intends to do, but the old inspiring Obama just isn't there. And the surrogates -- Biden and Hillary -- are policy-wonking it too.

I hope I'm wrong. Given my great respect for those who ran the nomination campaign so well, I wonder if I should say anything at all. But, as I predicted, Palin has turned out to be effective and the Obama campaign has not been effective in dealing with her. I've been getting loads of email asking me to say something to the campaign. So with some hesitation and a great deal of respect, I will simply point out what I see.

Four years ago I wrote a book called, Don't Think of an Elephant! The title made a basic point: Negating a frame activates that frame. If you activate the other side's frame, you just help the other side, as Nixon found out when he said, "I am not a crook," which made people think of him as a crook.

The Obama campaign just put out an ad called "No Maverick". The basic idea was right. The Maverick Frame is central to the McCain campaign, and as the ad points out, it's a lie. But negating the Maverick Frame just activates that frame and helps McCain. You have to substitute a different frame that characterizes McCain as he really is. There are various possibilities. Let's consider one of them. Ninety percent of the time, McCain has been a Yes-Man for Bush. Think in terms of questions at a debate. If the question is, is McCain a maverick?, you are thinking about him as a maverick, even when you are trying to find ways in which he isn't. McCain wins. If the question is whether McCain is a Yes-Man for Bush, you put McCain on the defensive. People think of him as a Yes-man 90 percent of the time, and try to think cases when he might not have been. This is not rocket science. It's the first principle of framing.

The "No Maverick" ad also misses an opportunity. It correctly observes that McCain's campaign is loaded with "lobbyists." But most of the people the ad is trying to reach don't know just what a "lobbyist" is. McCain is saying he is fighting against the Washington power structure. A lobbyist is a "member of the Washington power structure." If you use such a phrase, you can point out that McCain campaign itself is part of the Washington power structure, the old-boy network.

But these are small, easily fixable problems. Just change a word here or there. The campaign is facing bigger internal problems. Let's start with the statement by Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, that the campaign is "not about the issues."

In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates, because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors.

In the 2008 nomination campaign, Hillary ran on the issues, while Obama ran on those five factors and won. McCain is now running a Reagan-Bush style character-based campaign on the Big Five factors. But Obama has switched to a campaign based "on the issues," like Hillary, Gore, and Kerry. Obama has reality on his side. And the campaign is assuming that if you just tell people the truth, they will reason to the right conclusion. That's false and they should know better.

Chris Cillizza, in his Washington Post column, made the mistake of calling this a matter of "personality." DLC theorists Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck have previously made the same mistake. Voters are smarter. Since they don't know what the situation will be in a couple of years, it is rational to ask if a candidate shares your values, if he's saying what he believes, if he connects with you, if you trust him, and if you identify with him. That is a rational thing to do. Not just a matter of personality.

Unfortunately, it is also easy to manipulate these things with marketing techniques. As Cillizza points out, McCain and Palin are being marketed as American icons: the war hero and the ideal mom. Obama and Biden were marketed (honestly) as realizations of the American Dream, living hope that it is still possible -- with Obama as the lone figure with the charisma, character, and talent to actually unite the country and bring back the dream.

So far, the McCain-Palin narratives are proving powerful. Palin has enormous charisma of her own. Meanwhile the Obama narrative is being given up in favor of "the issues." It is as though, after the Republicans attacked Obama's charismatic leader persona, the Obama campaign gave up on it, instead of realizing that they could capitalize on it.

Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe released the following statement: "We appreciate Senator McCain's campaign manager finally admitting that his campaign is not in fact about the issues the American people care about, which is exactly the kind of cynical old politics people are ready to change." But Plouffe, very much to his credit, beat the Clinton campaign in just that way. Hillary played the policy wonk and lost. Barack ran on what his biography showed about his values; his willingness to say what he believed (authenticity); his ability to connect, communicate and build trust through his sincerity; and on the use of his biography to get voters to identify with him. The beauty of Obama's nomination campaign, right through his acceptance speech at the convention, was his ability to frame realities through running on those five character factors. The campaign performed brilliantly.

But post-Palin, the Obama-Biden campaign seems to have become the Gore-Kerry-Hillary campaign. They are running on 18th Century theory of Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the facts, they will follow their self-interest and reason to the right conclusion. What contemporary cognitive scientists have discovered (See my new book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain), and what Republican marketers have known for decades, is that the Enlightenment theory of reason doesn't describe how people actually work. People think primarily in terms of cultural narratives, stereotypes, frames, and metaphors. That is real reason.

Realities matter. To communicate them, you have to make use of real reason. That's what Obama did in the nomination campaign when he used his personal narrative to communicate about the country's needs. Obama needs to go back to being Obama. The Obama campaign's job is to shine a light on those realities through Obama's unique personal qualities as a leader and communicator.

The Obama campaign has problems with conservative populism. They don't seem to understand it. Conservative populism on a national scale was invented in the late 1960s. At the time, most working people identified themselves with liberals. But conservatives realized that many working people were what I have called "biconceptuals" -- they are genuinely conservative in their mode of thought about patriotism and certain family issues, though they are progressive in their understanding of nature (they love the land) and their commitment to communities where people care about each other, etc. So conservatives have talked to them nonstop about conservative "patriotism" and "family values", thus activating their conservative mindset. At the same time, conservative theorists invented the ideal of "liberal elitism": that liberals look down upon working people and are not like them. Conservatives have been working at constructing this mythology for nearly forty years and liberals have stood by and let it happen. Palin is a natural for the conservative populists. She understands their culture.

Conservative populism is a cultural, not an economic, phenomenon. These are folks who often vote against their economic self-interest and instead vote on their identity as conservatives and on their antipathy to liberals, who they see as elitists who look down on them. Simply giving conservative populists facts and figures won't work.

They tend to vote for people they identify with and against people who they see as looking down on them. The job for the Obama campaign is to reverse the present mindset that the Republicans have constructed, to reveal the conservatives as elitist Washington insiders who cynically manipulate them, to get conservative populists to identify with Obama and Biden on the basis of values and character, and to have them see realities through Obama's leadership capacities. Not an easy job. But it's the real job.

Debate Preparation

I am concerned about the upcoming debates. There are two aspects of debate prep: internal and external. Let's start with the external, since it's less obvious. What happens in a debate depends very much on questions asked and the framing used to ask them. It's the job of a campaign to get questions asked that use their own framing and language, not the opposition's framing and language. The McCain campaign has been very active in prepping the press to ask his questions with his frames: The Maverick Frame, the Country First Frame, The Surge Is Working Frame, the Victory Frame, The Drilling Frame, the Change Washington Frame, and so on. McCain can answer questions based on these frames easily and forcefully, as he did at the Saddleback debate, which he won handily.

Obama's On Your Own Frame for McCain is one the press should bring up. And whether our economic problems are all psychological, as McCain has said. And Obama's riff on empathy, and caring for one another being the basis of our democracy. This is a matter for Obama to decide, but the press should be prepped about what the moral and character issues are for Obama, as well as what the policy issues are.

McCain won because he used short answers, and answers that reflected deep conservative values. Obama hesitated, tried to give nuanced answers, and came off looking like he had no values. Obama needs to train, to give fast, straight-on, inspiring responses that link his major themes -- empathy, responsibility (both social and personal) and aspiration -- to the foundational ideals of our country. Obama's values are America's values, and that has to come out loud and clear.

Additionally, he must show just how extremist the McCain/Palin ticket is.

Drilling

Senator Obama occasionally uses a rhetorical strategy that I believe is counterproductive. In response to a conservative position he rightfully opposes, he will sometimes try to sound sweetly reasonable by using a conditional sentence of the corm: If A, then B. Here B is the conservative position he is against, and A consists of one or more reasonable proposals that he knows conservatives would never accept. If we raise fuel efficiency standards on cars, get rid of the oil company subsidy, invest hundreds of billions in renewable sources of energy, ... , then I might be in favor of limited office drilling. This is reported in the news as Obama changes his position on drilling, when he hasn't changed it at all. Knowing that the if-clause could not be accepted by conservatives, he isn't really making a commitment to offshore drilling. But the fact is that, to many people, it looks like he supports drilling, and in so doing, he is helping to legitimize drilling.

Meanwhile, an opportunity is being lost. The Drilling Frame is being accepted. The Drilling Frame works like this:

You drill. You hit oil. You pump it up. There's lots of it. Prices go down.

What is left out of the frame are all the crucial facts.

The timeline: It's ten years from drilling to getting gas at the pump.

The amount: It's very small compared to what we use. We'll barely notice it. There isn't enough to significantly bring down prices.

The danger: Drilling is killing: Offshore spills can destroy fishing grounds.

The world market: The oil will go on the world market, which means that China, India, and other countries will drive up the price. There may be no saving at all.

Global Warming: More oil can only increase global warming.

A Diversion: Drilling takes investment away from alternative energy.

Just stating the facts won't change the frame. But the right visuals might. Start with the existing frame and visuals. Add each pitfall visually, one by one, so that it becomes clear at each stage what will go wrong. Visuals are powerful, and they can be used to put McCain on the defensive.

The Moral: Obama needs to be Obama again, the inspiring figure who gives us hope, not the dull policy wonk. He underestimated McCain's debating abilities, and needs to prep both externally by giving the press new questions to ask, and internally, by being precise and making his values clear. And he has to remember that voters vote on the basis of values, authenticity, communication, trust, and identity. If he is going to bring realities into the campaign, he has to do it via a strategy that includes all of those.

Natural charisma and brilliance are not enough. There's some hard work to be done.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

Comments

[dizmo4]

Mr Lakoff, II disagge,
Obama's recent change from "five factors" campaign to "policy wonk" campaign was NOT in response to the Palin choice, but rather the 'celebrity' attacks. Both the Hillary and McCain campaigns have used Obama's strengths of charisma and inspiration against him, branding him as "just words" or "all style with no substance.­" Inspiration speeches and the like are great for 90% of the campaign but at some point he needs to reassure the uncommitted voters that want to vote for him, but still have doubts, that he has plans and is ready to lead. Obama accomplishes this by holding some rather boring town halls where he gets into the gory details of policy. Yes, it's boring, but it demonstrates that he's not an empty suit.

Second, Obama can not win the election based upon those five factors, not enough people identify with him and therefore McCain/Palin will always be more trustworthy than Obama from a purely "who's more like you" perspective. Palin is more like rural voters than Obama can ever be. Obama can only win this election based upon policy--making people ask "who is going to help me more" instead of "who is more like me." He needs to stay on the economic populous message.

That said, I do think Obama needs to begin to hit back at McCain harder and go on the offensive.

[vegasobserver]

I don't think Dr. Lakoff was saying the switch in strategy was a RESPONSE to the Palin choice.

You're right, it could have been due to the celebrity attacks.

The reason for the switch was not the point of Dr. Lakoff's article. The point he was making was that, for whatever reasons it was done, the switch was not a good move.

And playing into McCain's frame by repeating the "maverick" trope in a TV ad only compounded this problem. Avoiding this mistake should be Rule #1 for the Democrats and it should be plastered on every wall in the DNC and Obama headquarters.

[todderchek]

You are not going to change the public's view of McCain as a "maverick", reiterated over the years by leaders of both parties, by running or not running ads saying he is not.

[BillCarson]

>Mr Lakoff, II disagge,

Disagree with Dr. Lakoff at your own risk.

If Obama keeps continuing down the same path he's going to lose the election. The latest electoral count http://www.electoral-vote.com//) is:

Obama 268, McCain 270

For the first time, McCain has taken the lead, and has enough votes to win. From a high-water mark of 325 on July 18th, the trend has been a disaster for Obama.

Lakoff has been right for the last 4 years, when are the democrats going to listen?

[vegasobserver]

Lakoff is absolutely right, as usual. Every word of this article is 100% gold, and should be framed and placed on the walls in Obama's campaign headquarters.

I was telling everyone in the last few days exactly what Lakoff is saying here, that the Obama ad "No Maverick" was a bad one, for precisely the reason Lakoff mentions -- it calls attention to McCain's positive frame of himself, and plays into this frame, instead of substituting a new frame.

This was a extremely, pathetically poor choice on the part of Obama's consultants, but it was a choice that is all too common and typical among Democratic consultants at this stage in a campaign. The temptation to pick up and carry on an ongoing media trope is just too great, because these consultants live in a media saturated bubble. Instead of "thinking outside the bubble", they simply perpetuate the thinking of the media bubble, or "echo chamber", usually with disastrous results.

Lakoff's article was great, but he did get one small thing factually wrong -- it is Elaine Kamarck at the DLC, not Elaine Lamark.

[SpectCon]

Vegas, you are dead on.

It's like an echo chamber these people live in. And, sadly for Democrats, the Dem consultants are just not as good at the negative stuff the media eats up.

As you post above, the problem wasn't the response, it was changing in the first place. That's why I agree with Lakoff about the Democratic convention.

Even while all the pundits said make it nasty, Obama's people stayed together and worked on unity. (As I keep posting, a lack of Democratic turn out is really the only thing that can destroy Obama.) He had a great convention.

To McCain's slimy credit, the threw the hail mary and it worked. Most people think working will be if he wins...but really, Palin just kept McCain in the game. He put Obama on the defensive when he really doesn't have to be. (Granted he has little choice as the media needed a new story and Palin was a great story.)

But the fundamentals are still good for Obama. I wish I could bet on him at Intrade where Obama is trailing!

[ssg13565]

Brilliant article. I have put a link to it on my blog.

One further example that proves your point comes from the 2005 campaign.

As I remember the 2004 Democratic Convention, it really went on the attack against George Bush. It did such a devastating job on Bush that no one in their right mind would vote for Bush.

After the convention Kerry decided to be diplomatic, cool, and cerebral. All that he gained during the convention quickly vanished. The guy that could be defeated by "Anyone but Bush" ended up with another 4 years.

It was so disheartening to this Kerry supporter to see such a brilliant start fizzle into nothing.

I thought sure that Obama would not make the Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton mistakes. This recent behavior of the Obama campaign is really disheartening again. I hope against hope, that this Lakoff article will get the attention of the Obama campaign.

[ethel08]

Not to be combative, but I thought one of the biggest charges against the 2004 convention was that it didn't go hard enough against bush.

And honestly, I never saw any "brilliant start" in Kerry. He was nominated because he seemed "electable," largely because people perceived his military service would coat him in teflon against attacks. But he's always been kind of distant, which isn't his fault or even a bad thing, but hard to connect with on a national level. Obama has not been distant in the past, but is appearing more so these days. It is the exact opposite of the trajectory of HRC's primary campaign, and you would have thought that after going through that, the Obama folks would realize how powerful that is.

[saus]

Back when I was a kid (long long ago), Maverick horses wee cut out of the herd mostly because they did more disruption than good. Farmers didn't want Mavericks, they wanted Big husky work horses that could pull the plow. Being a maverick is a pretty shallow metaphor if you want to think of it...uh...­metaphoric­ally.

[special muppet]

When Obama speaks it's great. The man has passion, charisma and the right policies. But some of the ads being churned out in his name are the blandest and most passionless pieces of political campaigning I have ever seen in my life. With all the dozens of A list actors, producers and directors that publicly support Obama, can't they make something that grabs the attention and makes us think.

I see these ads and then at the end they say "I'm Barak Obama and I approve this message."

I think to myself, "why?".

There are 7 weeks left. Get on the phone to Clooney and get him to sort something decent out.

[theworldisturning]

{Cataclysmic blunder, anyone? POW off-the-handle with the "bulldog in lipstick" right there behind him...? CAN WE ALL PICTURE THIS SCENARIO??! Yes, I think we can. We'd better GET this picture into vote minds.} THIS IS THE NARRATIVE. Being lost admist the enthusiasm of those who think apocalypse is just around the corner anyway, and soft waves of momishness and war heroism "I'll take care of you" the general public has been swallowing! Let's combat it not by being combative but by SHOWING UP how THEY are combative unstable and unreliable. Not mom and pop at the table holding it down an gettin' rid of corruption­.}

DON'T THINK OF A MAVERICK .... Think of

*** TWO UNSTABLE FLY-OFF-THE-HANDLE TYPES with more GUSTO than BRAINS ***
*** TWO UNSTABLE AND PUGNATIOUS PATRIOTS WHO WILL LEAD US INTO WARS which will never end and will drain our economy and our countries vitality.
*** TWO UNBALLANCED & UNSTABLE TEMPERMENTS who will BLUNDER, act without thinking
*** TWO HOT TEMPERMENTS WHO WITH PERSONAL DEMONS & VENDETTAS and who will drag us all down with them as they go on thier UNHINGED CRUSADES. (pow, fire my sister's ex! get those books out of the library!)

POW angle is a delicate subject, obviously can't be addressed directly, like Barack's blackness.­.. make no mistake, these subjects can (on one side CERTAINLY will be) addressed. There are things we are too polite to think of but think of none the less and which DO play into our decision making.

[annabelle]

Stop the negative talk! At the first sign of struggle the Democrats freak out! You send this negative, doubting vibe into the world! Stop!
And don't tell me that your negativity is based on analysis and good logic. What Obama needs is determined supporters (A Republican strength by the way), believers. But maybe deep down Democrats don't believe that a black man can be elected in America. Think about that.

[SpectCon]

I agree. This should be a party.

He's got a great shot at winning even when he's at his lowest point in the season here.

If the election were held today, I'm pretty darn sure Obama would win. The polls are split in OH, I think the extra registrants and ground game there would win it. He's doing better in NH than prior to the GOP convention. That's an important state. He's still going to win NM. He's still likely to win CO. He's within range in VA and NC where 20 percent AA vote means he could win both.

So simply stated, if the election were held today he'd keep all the Kerry states in be in a strong position to win either by CO, NM, NH, or OH or FL or NC or VA or a combo.

[Sparhawk]

"Stop the negative talk!" (read: You're injecting reality into the conversation. Hope and Change! Don't worry about logic and realistic evaluation)

tick...tic­k....tick.­..Time's a wasting folks...Ob­ama needs to some up with something to even show up in November..­.

[profounddogs]

Help. Help. Help. What DOES "middle class" mean exactly? Why does Obama continue to use that term when that term could mean $37K per year, $40K per year, $50K per year -- depending on where you live in the country. It's WRONG to use a term that is confusing. It confuses me and I'm a Democrat (who was a Travis County, Texas delegate for Obama)!

I'm just trying to give a helpful suggestion here so we Dems can win the Presidency!

DO NOT use that term ("middle class") unless you specify an amount and what part of the country you are takling about!!!! This is why the Dems lose -- because the heads that speak (i.e., Obama) use language that the average American (moi) do not understand and which do not make sense.

Also, be honest, be yourself! Obama! BE yourself, for crying out loud!

Cut the crap, the clutter, the typical words, the typical speeches ------ BE OBAMA. I couldn't have agreed more with this simple message from this blogger!

THIS IS TO OBAMA -- BE YOURSELF!

[ethel08]

If you look at polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans categorize themselves as "middle class," even though it's impossible for so large of the percentage of the people to actually be in the middle. That's why he uses it. Start giving specific numbers, and people can realize that he's actually not talking about them. The $250,000 figure works because it is so much more than most Americans make. But if he starts talking about what he will do for folks who make $50K or less, well......

[jackie4444]

...the campaign is assuming that if you just tell people the truth, they will reason to the right conclusion. That's false and they should know better."

It is not false. The problem lies in the assumptions made - that there can be only one answer to what is 'truth' or 'the right conclusion'.

The best analogy is the criminal jury system. "Truth" is what a group of fact-finders devoid of personal knowledge of events decide that it is. Strategies are nearly identical. If the expected evidence looks damaging, my defense is an appeal to sympathy, or a dog and pony show with dramatic gestures designed to outrage the jury against the prosecution (Palin). If the facts are with me as a prosecutor I can still screw it up by presenting evidence in a pedantic or tedious fashion (Obama) which diminishes the attention paid to it.

Or I can respect the jurors' intelligence by providing the signposts for their journey - pointing out a conflict or hesitation, corroboration/lack thereof - without insisting no other path is possible.

Obama needs to remember that there is no conclusion more jealously guarded than one a person believes they have arrived at as a result of their own thought and analysis. He needs to give the
voting public relevant but not unnecessarily verbose information, point out the important questions
they need to be ASKING THEMSELVES, and providing light for the path to the 'right conclusion'.
'Voting character' is a poor substitute for voting conviction.

[radicalcentrist44]

So Obama should just keep running as an empty suit and an inspirational message? Tell me, if he gets elected, what does his inspiring other people have to do with running the country? How does citizens being inspired fix the tax code, create jobs and put more of their earned money in their pockets where it belongs? All right, I am inspired, I voted for Obama, he go elected, now what? What does this "inspired" really mean?

[SpectCon]

Well he's a professor and has books written on what he'll do. He has at least 60 pages in specific proposals on his webpage.

He is the last thing from an empty suit.

So, either the people care enough to find out or they don't. Almost universally they don't care. You obviously don't. You'll care enough to go to a political blog but won't take the time to read his policies. So you propose Obama spend his time detailing all of his programs in minutiae you won't listen to? Why bother?

THE ISSUE IS KICKING THE GOP OUT OF POWER.

And Obama should stop harping on how bad things are, people know they're bad. He needs more of what you say he shouldn't do.

He needs to pump up the enthusiasm. He needs to get people inspired about the country again. He needs come in riding a tidal wave of optimism--better times are on the way. What inspiration will do is KICK THE GOP OUT.

[Sparhawk]

"...He needs to get people inspired about the country again. He needs come in riding a tidal wave of optimism..­."

What?? How did his people lose their enthusiasm? how did his people get uninspired?? (Wait for it...it's all the GOPs fault.)

Could it be that many are reading it for what he really is? Naw...coul­dn't be

[Snow97]

If you never get out of the starting gate, you can't finish the race. There are a lot of people out there -- working for universities, working for think tanks, staffing government offices -- who mull over policy nuances to the 9th degree but who may never change anyone's life because they are unable to set policy. And they are unable to set policy because they fail to reach out to voters in a way that resonates.

As I read your comment, you don't want the ends to justify the means.

But, if Obama loses this campaign, it won't matter that he would have been the most thorough, nuanced, educated, or intelligent leader we might have had.

[vegasobserver]

The point is, to govern you first have to be elected.

Obama has a wonderful issue agenda, but it ain't gonna amount to sh-t unless he's elected, and Lakoff has explained the only way Obama can get elected.

[ethel08]

"Obama needs to train, to give fast, straight-on, inspiring responses that link his major themes -- empathy, responsibility (both social and personal) and aspiration -- to the foundational ideals of our country. Obama's values are America's values, and that has to come out loud and clear."

I really think that this is the best insight of the piece. "Change" is too broad, which is why it has been co-opted by someone like McCain. But when people say they want specifics on how Obama will change Washington, he only seems to perceive that these days as them asking how his policy positions will be different. Indeed, there's a time and a place for such answers. But what I think most voters mean when they ask how he is going to change Washington is what Lakoff brings up here: what is different about you and your philosophy that really makes you different from all of these other jerks who have been promising us the moon and delivering nothing? I actually think Obama's answer to this question--empathy, responsibility, and aspiration--are deeply held American values that currently trump the Republicans' core values of patriotism and family.

[SpectCon]

Why is everyone buying the conventional wisdom that Obama needs fight more?

Don't you see that he can never win a fight with McCain? He's a black guy, which limits how negative he can go.

More than that, he doesn't need to. The Democrats have every advantage in registered voters, organization, etc. All Obama needs to do is turn them out.

Why even engage McCain? If you've noticed he's engaged McPalin everyday since Saturday..­.and yet, if you read the papers and watch TV pundits it's as if Obama didn't just have the most active and directly negative week. It's as if it didn't happen. Not because Obama failed (he actually checked Palin's rise and has gained now a little) but because that's not what really separates him.

Obama probably can't lose this, but it would help if he stopped playing McCain's game and made a really big push for optimism and renewal.

Fast, bright, smiling, lots of people, big rallies and excited--that's what we need.

[ethel08]

This article is suggesting the exact opposite of fighting. It's claiming that Obama needs to stop letting McCain define the terms of the election, define the values that matter. Obama has to find a way to speak to people's values, not just his policies. Sure, he needs to connect those values with some specifics, but to only focus on policy and specifics is what has doomed Democrats in the past. It is why Bill Clinton was such an effective candidate, and it is what HRC learned to do as the primaries wore on.

[SpectCon]

Well I agree, I don't think Lakoff was talking about fighting..­.I was referring to people posting and the conventional wisdom of the moment.

I think Clinton won in 92 because of his message HOPE. Reagan won in 80 because he presented a positive and optimistic future. Those are the campaigns Obama should mirror.

[ethel08]

Thanks for another insightful and interesting article. I find it very persuasive and articulates much of what I have been feeling, but have been unable to put the right words to. In essence, the Obama campaign is letting the McCain camp define him. It puts him on the defensive, and forces him to talk about obscure policy points that only people who read these blogs really know about. Their campaign feels different than it did during the primaries.

But what you didn't tell us, Lakoff, is if the campaign is listening or not. (Fingers crossed.)

[one4REALchange]

Don’t think of purple elephants. What we give our attention to, we feed.

Obama is asking us to say “Enough.”

America, we are better than these last eight years! This election is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise that ordinary Americans can pursue and reach our dreams’.

Obama speaks sincerely and has a history of working for the millions who want change to happen.

Enough of failed policies.

OBAMA'08

OBAMA'12

[PuritanDescendant]

Fact is, McCain is acting like he wants the presidency more. He's energized, and it shows. Obama, show some fire. Show some passion. Raise your voice. Slam the healthcare and economy issues non-stop. Stretch the truth. Outrage the Reputridcans with distortions. You can do it

[SpectCon]

But he can't do it. The numbers aren't there for McCain unless he can stop Dems from turning out. There just aren't enough Republicans.

Yes he seems more desperate. He is. Palin proves it. It would've been reckless if he had anything to lose trying such a long shot.

The passion needs to be positive and exciting. Revitalizing.

It's painfully obvious that many even on these pages don't keep up everyday. They must tune in for like 10 minutes or something and that gives them a feel for the tenor of the race. And the media has painted this week as panic week for Obama. However, Obama has spent this last week doing exactly what most people seem to be suggesting he do...get negative and passionate. That won't sell. That's McCain's game, it brings Obama down and worries Obama land. So he needs to stop.