Archive for the ‘wordsmithing’ Category

Wordsmithing: Obama has it!

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

His speech tonight was amazing. He combined genuine praise for Hillary, showed respect for the good things McCain has done, and attacked with both logic and wit the faults in the McCain campaign.

 The gem comment was “We need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we where careless getting in”. Brilliant.

I really hope that the party will be able to come together. Now that we have a presumptive nominee, I have a couple of ideas I am going to roll out over the next couple of days. So stay tuned.

Wordsmithing 101

Friday, May 23rd, 2008

Don’t say this:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it

I mean seriously, it was just creepy and not a smart thing to say at all. What she should have said was “unexpected things can happen over the course of the primary, especially those where the winner is not determined until close to the very end”.

h/t to Oyster

“I have never been to that Establishment…”

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Canal Street Madam Jeanette Maier has claimed that Billy Nungesser was a long time client of hers. His response?

I have never been to that establishment. These allegations came up before and are old news; they started years ago when the political enemies of my father tried to attack him. During my campaign, my political enemies tried to revive those same allegations. I said then just as I say now, I have never been to that establishment. “

So I guess he is trying to say that he has never been to that establishment. Notice, he didn’t say “I have never used the services of a prostitute” or “I have never been a client of hers”. He just said that he has never been to THAT establishment.

Just sayin…

More on wordsmithing: The Ferraro edition

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

In response to a question on why Barack Obama is the front-runner, she said:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept

Again, Democrats need to invest in people who will help them say things the right way. First of all, there is no way to claim to know what position the mythical “white Barack Obama” would be in if he was running for President. As a caller to WWL rightly said this afternoon, it is highly possible that the mythical ”white Barack Obama” would have already locked up the nomination since there are still, unfortunately, some people who still look at race when walking into the voting booth.

What Ferraro should have said, and what I think she meant, was that Barack Obama has been successful in many states because of his race. The polling numbers clearly show that voters who are black are coming out to vote and a super-majority of them are voting for Obama. Clearly, Obama is doing well in Southern States where a large percentage of the Democratic Party are Black. His success in those races have enabled him to obtain and retain the lead. So his race may very well have HELPED.

However, her assumption that those voters would not have come out in support of the mythical “white Barack Obama” is clearly flawed because there is no way to know what voters who are Black may have done. Barack Obama is an exceptional person and I feel that he would likely be a star in the party if he was blue.

Obama’s response shows he really doesn’t understand what she was saying.

If you were to get a handbook on what’s the path to the presidency, I don’t think that the handbook would start by saying, ‘Be an African American named Barack Obama.’ I don’t think that would be generally considered an advantage, and it certainly wasn’t when I was running for the United States Senate or the presidency

Of course such a handbook would not say that. However, it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Obama’s race has not helped him. It is just also foolish to claim that Obama would not be in the lead if he was another race, or a woman.

And where do we get that handbook…..

Wordsmiths part 2 and other debate issues

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

Previously I discussed that Democrats need better wordsmiths. The debate tonight continues that concept. Hillary did have one good line where she stated that it took one Clinton to fix the mess one Bush made, maybe it will take another Clinton to fix the mess of this Bush.

However, she still needs some wordsmiths. Hillary was asked if she made a mistake or was naive when she voted to authorize force in Iraq.

She gave her answer which went all over the place. Her answer should have been:

“No. It was not a mistake. I made a decision based on what was presented to me as facts. The President lied. Had the President not misled us, I would have voted differently. But that was not my mistake, it was his lie. He should take all the blame. The question we should ask now is why are there still Republicans who still support his failed policies.”

It is really that simple. It is just like how John Kerry should have stopped saying “I voted for the war before I voted against it” and should have said “I voted to give the President power to take appropriate action. The action he took was not appropriate”.

I also had an issue with one of Obama’s answers. In the discussion of the decision to give the President power to take action. Hillary stated that we have used the threat of force to cause other people to take action before. Obama criticized the vote to authorize force because he said that she had to know that the President could take military action with the authority granted.

Now, hindsight is 20/20 and all reasonable people wish that we had not given the President the power to take action. However, how effective would legislation been that was geared to make Saddam take action if it lacked the teeth to back up the demands? It is like the mall security guard running after you saying “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!”.

Basically, Congress should be able to authorize the President to use the threat of force and trust that the President will use that power responsibly. Because Bush failed to use his power responsibly does not mean that we should be blaming those who he misled.

Democrats need better wordsmiths

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

When Hillary Clinton was asked “Are you looking to end this war or win it?” she responded “I’m looking to bring our troops home”.

Progressives, liberals, Democrats and any of the other labels you want to place on those who want and end to this war will stand up and applaud those comments. However, we need to not just pander to our base. We need to have our candidates anticipate the Republican attacks on the statements that are made and cut them off at the pass.

By saying what she said, anybody can see the Republican attack on it now. “When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wants to win the war, she did not say yes”. The flag will be flying in the background, with a shot of our troops, and maybe some 9-11 imagery.

Assuming the view that we have not won the war yet is correct, Hillary Clinton should have said is this:

“The only way to win the war is with diplomacy and an expectation of Iraq to take its duty to defend itself seriously. By bringing our troops home and uplifting a Democratically elected Iraq, we win this war by winning the peace.”

Now, I am of the opinion that the war was won years ago when Saddam was toppled and the reason Bush is still in Iraq is to use it as a terrorist magnet (and thus perpetuating the terrorist problem with our own actions and justifying, in his mind, our continued presence). So if I was on the stage, I would have stated:

“This war was won when we toppled Saddam’s regime. Now we have to win the peace and we cannot do so without the Iraqi people embracing their duty to take care of themselves. The best way to do this is a structured withdrawal from Iraq that includes the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. Such provisions where included in HR 1591. However, the Republican obstructionists who are blindly following the failed “stay the course” policies of our President blocked that legislation from coming forward”.

By saying something like this, Hillary would have been able to both get the applause from the progressives while also presenting a preemptive attack against the Republican statements that we all know will come.