FORGET SCROOGE! Enthusiastic Crowds and high soaring oratory is just what this country needs!

Just because Bush and now McCain can't generate excitement, doesn't mean that it is something bad.

The GOP would have us live in the Twilight Zone, in a world where up is down, and bad is good.

The GOP has been trying to demoralize us and "decide" for us what is good in the arena of politics. If they'd have it their way, big crowds are bad, and small tiny gatherings are good.

Excitement for a candidate is a negative, and crowds who nearly fall asleep while the pol is talking is excellent.

Taking the week-end off every week is acceptable, but taking a one week vacation after weeks of campaigning with no time off is a terrible no-no.

Making inspiring speeches is creepy, while making speeches that are laughably incoherent is reassuring.

Lying about your opponent's policies on a daily basis is politics, while telling the truth about your opponent means you are playing some kind of "card".

Low rent negative advertising shows strength and confidence, while positive advertising means you are weak and unsure of your stance.

Having vague scant policies on paper equals "details", while having pages after pages of policy information is vague.

Traveling to other countries to meet world leaders is presumptuous, but ordering other countries around while surrounded by flags from your microphone in Ohio is humble.

Announcing that you know "how to win wars" although you haven't won any is a modest claim, while exhibiting correct reasoned judgment while surrounding yourself with capable foreign policy wonks shows arrogance.

Coming in 5th to last in your class makes you smart, and being top of your class at Harvard makes you an empty suit.

Voting for a war that we didn't have to fight makes you Foreign policy savvy, while being against same war from the start makes you naive.

Being raised by a single mother and no father is elitist, while coming from a long line of admirals makes you a common man.

Being born in Hawaii is exotic, while being born in Panama is all American.

Cheating on your disabled wife and dumping her for a rich heiress makes one a family man, while being married and struggling with one woman and raising young children makes you out of touch.

Being ahead in the polls is questionably a sign that you are barely winning, while being behind in the polls makes you a do-gooder underdog who has a good chance to take it all.

Having millions of small donors and volunteers makes you a cult, and having large corporate donors and few people interested in your cause makes you a steady hand.

Having the support of an unpopular President who's policies you voted for 95% of the time makes you a maverick, while consistently going against the same President makes you a risk to the nation.

Being charismatic, young and good looking makes you a fad, while being older than dirt and twice as ugly makes you wise.

Being White automatically makes you right, while being Black makes you handicapped.

Some of us are buying into this frame of negativity about our outstanding candidate, and I should ask that we don't let ourselves get taken there. They are working overtime in psyching us out. Please don't buy it. We do not live in the Twilight Zone, and we need not forget that.

Reagan excited large crowds, and he was a bitter racist who drove wages down and the deficit through the ceiling.

I do care whether a candidate has good ideas, makes good decisions, values human life, promotes equality in his or her personal actions as well as in public policy, and understands that most problems cannot be solved by blowing up children. If that candidate gets the crowds excited, then it's a bonus.

which is partly how one wins elections. See Reagan.

I wouldn't build a campaign on them. Obama has a lot of advantages over McCain, not just his crowds.

but I maintain that we cannot allow the GOP and its media to turn the good into something else. That is the part of this whole propaganda PR situation that we have under our control, and we need to remember that.

They turn our positives into negatives, so people can't see what we are about. They turned the visionary Gore into a deluded exaggerater, they turned the heroic Kerry into an egomaniac. They attack us with our strengths, and use sarcasm to turn those strengths into farce in other people's minds. And we make the same mistake, of campaigning on personality, thinking we have to win the way the Republicans win.

That's what they are doing to Obama. He generated fierce excitement and optimism, so the media is turning him into a celebrity cult leader.

Only Clinton found a way around that. He was one of the most serious and most complex and pragmatic candidates we've ever had, and so they focused on issues to make him look selfish and simple--womanizing, draft dodging, McDonald's. So Clinton went around the media, taking his message straight to the public on MTV, and Phil Donahue, and Arsenio Hall. People heard him personally explaining his ideas, rather than hearing the media's mockery of him, and then starting the "town hall" debates which had less moderating, and more audience interaction. He played to his strengths, and won in spite of the media.

I think Obama has to do something like that, too. He has to get people to see him, rather than the media's spin of him. Don't know how, but that's it.

I wasn't trying to say there is anything wrong with Obama drawing crowds, only that that wasn't the most important part of him. On the one hand, the crowds are a sign that he is getting through to people. But I think focusing on his crowd-pleasing ability is playing into the media's hands, and into McCain's, as well. McCain is getting mocked for his commercials, but they are very effective altogether. They are trivializing Obama's popularity, and all together they are turning his crowds into a punchline. Obama has to show he's more than that.

Not that he isn't showing that. :)

I'm calling them out on their bullshit....and letting folks know that just because the media says that we shouldn't want to like Obama crowds, that yes, we should. :)

:rofl: I'm all for fighting the media over every little trap they set.

so pointing them out as we move along may possibly be priceless. :shrug:

Kick and HIGHLY recommended!!

even some here at DU.

Right now, it's the Southern Strategy backwards. People like Obama, but continue to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of voters. They start to question Obama. It's happening now. The plan is to demoralize voters, hoping that they'll stop being enthusiastic, stop working, stop donating...perhaps not vote at all!!!

Take Obama's greatest strength--voter enthusiasm for his candidacy--turning it into his greatest weakness; hence, the obsession with calling him a celebrity, etc.

The fact that DUers cannot even see what's going on saddens me deeply.

from the grand old media.

Excellent summary of all that is wrong with what the media is trying to sell us.

A succinct, yet comprehensive overview of why we are, as a nation, in dire trouble, and why CorpMedia and their overlords, CorpUSA, should be questioned and re-questioned each time they make an assertion.

Send this to Cokie Roberts and the rest of the MediaWhores...!!!

that is what is dangerous.

there are relatively few people who will consciously tell themselves that they'll vote for mccain over obama because of race.
such overt racists certainly exist, and there are still far too many of them, but they are small in number compared to the subconscious racist.

the subconscious racist can't permit himself to be overtly racist, but is nevertheless uncomfortable about race. because of this, they WANT to vote for the white guy, but they NEED to have a non-race-based excuse, so they can tell themselves they're not actually being racist.

consequently, these a whole lot of really STUPID arguments stick, because these people are grasping, trying to latch on to ANYTHING that lets them feel like they can get away with voting for the white guy without being racist in the process.

I disagree with this premise.

I believe that the media is hoping that it is the case, and I believe that they will be proven wrong. At the end of the day, melanin will not what wins or loses this election, IMO.

i agree that we're talking about a minority of white americans.

whether we are talking about a majority of swing voters in battleground states, that is the $64,000 question.

and we will, as we have done in the past consistently, prove the talking heads and their message of doom.....wrong.

"older than dirt and twice as ugly" :rofl: