Yes We Can: A Letter To My Unborn Child

To my unborn child:

As you read this, the story of President Obama is indelibly inked into the nation's biography. The audacity of Obama is as much a part of the American story as the honesty of Lincoln, the courage of Washington, the vision of FDR. The phrase "Yes We Can" is as ingrained in our lore as "four score and seven years ago" or "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Three words. So simple you may miss their importance. But at the time he first spoke them, they were nothing short of revolutionary.

When President Obama was still a young and exotic candidate, he got beaten pretty badly in a primary race by a powerful opponent. Some people were shocked. Some said it proved the doubters right. Many predicted he would never recover. But he was undaunted. And on a frozen New Hampshire night, he looked into the eyes of America and said "Yes We Can."

With those three words, this man we barely knew, who looked different and had a name we couldn't pronounce, touched the very core of what it means to be American. America responded because those three words are in our DNA, and watching this man speak, we had no doubt that it was true: Yes We Can.

President Obama was born at a time when many African Americans were still unable to vote. He was raised without his father, and at times there wasn't enough money for food. Many mornings, when he lived overseas, he had to wake up at 4:30 in the morning to study, just to keep up with American children his age.

He succeeded by being fearless and focused, graceful and true to himself. As a community organizer, Harvard lawyer, Constitutional scholar and state and federal senator, Barack Obama followed his heart. He worked for others. His vocation always followed his passion.

When he ran for president, Barack Obama was advised to wait. It was not his turn. He was inexperienced. He couldn't handle it. Then, when he became successful, he was attacked from every angle - some said he was "too black." Others said he was "too white." Some feared he was too conciliatory to those who disagreed with him; others accused him of being too partisan. Finally, people resorted to spreading lies and calling him every name in the book. But Barack Obama was calm, confident and clear about his purpose. He never got distracted, he never rushed, he was never guided by anything other than his own moral compass.

Like President Obama, you too will be judged unfairly. You will be embraced by some and rejected by others based on the color of your skin, the way you speak, or the clothes you wear. You may be labeled too young, too old, too short or tall or simply misguided. Some people may even try to dictate how you worship or whom you love. You will lose before you win.

And when you encounter those doubts, setbacks, even ridicule, you will understand the power of those three words.

Yes We Can means you will never be denied opportunity. Nothing will be out of reach. Yes We Can means you are not alone in your journey. If you listen to others, you will achieve more together than separately. Yes We Can means audacity and ingenuity beat inertia and trepidation every time.

Yes We Can prompted your great grandparents to risk everything and come to this country, weather the Great Depression, and prosper when the odds were against them. Yes We Can enabled both your grandfathers to face down death in a foreign war even as many in their homeland had disowned them. They never accepted failure as an option, they never stopped loving their country, and they never stopped believing in those three words. Yes We Can belongs to you because you've inherited it from all who came before you. You are the soldier, the businessman, the farmer, the teacher, the explorer. You are an American.

Americans dream big, follow-through, solve problems, and never quit. Americans are not always right, but we are resilient - we can change. Americans have a plurality of beliefs, but we hold these three words in common: Yes We Can.

As of this writing, your mother and I haven't met you yet - we haven't seen the color of your eyes or smelled your baby skin or heard your laugh - but we know you. And we know that every question has just one answer: Yes We Can.

Obama's Keys To Winning Tonight's Town Hall Debate

With one presidential and one vice presidential debate behind us, a pattern is emerging: each time, the Democratic candidate has come to the table armed with facts and policy proposals, while the Republican catered to pundits and the public with an amalgam of attitude and atmospherics, colloquialisms and avoidance-by-way-of-personal-anecdote.

And in tomorrow's town hall meeting in Nashville, John McCain will be on his home turf. McCain's been described as the "master of the town hall," and Nashville may present his last, best hope of wresting the momentum from Barack Obama. Rest assured, he'll be in fighting form.

Obama, who has been criticized by opponents for being "aloof" and "professorial," may have his work cut out for him. But his laid-back, unflappable demeanor and his down-to-earth lifestyle create an excellent opportunity to connect with the voters in the room and those watching on television. Here's what he needs to do to capitalize:

• Keep it short. Like Al Gore and John Kerry, Barack Obama is a victim of the Progressive's love of policy nuance. The Harvard lawyer may love building and presenting a case, but he'll be speaking to "ordinary Americans" - likely white, working class, and skewing older. He'll need to keep his responses short, pithy and punchy. This is no secret, and he's pulled it off plenty of times, so there's no need to worry; but he'll have to keep it in mind the whole time. Even one belabored answer risks losing the audience for good.
• Make eye contact. And not just with those in the room. Obama should split his time between speaking to the crowd and directly to the camera. In the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday, we all witnessed the contrast between Sarah Palin's eyes staring through the screen and Joe Biden's, cast downward as he addressed moderator Gwen Ifill. Obama will be wise to remember that the people he needs to win over are on the other side of the camera.
• Get a move on. We've all seen Obama in town hall meetings, half-sitting, allowing his comfort with the constituents to create a relaxed, personal atmosphere. Even seated, his presence still commands attention. But this doesn't translate as well on camera. By contrast, John McCain is a mover. He prowls the stage, cracking jokes and addressing his "friends." In the context of the emerging campaign narrative, this contrast can serve Obama well - Obama the cool hand versus the jumpy and erratic McCain - but he must be careful not to cede control of the room. Obama has an advantage standing next to the shorter, stooped McCain, and as he walks with his languid stride, even stepping into the audience to connect with questioners, he can remain the singular focus for the entire 90 minutes.
• Yes, words matter. Obama often uses clinical language, referring to "the middle class." In more populist moments, he opts for "folks." But in informal town halls, he must go a step further, into the second person. I'd like to see him directly address a questioner, or even the television audience, with "you." I'd like to see him ask a follow-up question of those in the audience, put full names to anecdotal characters, even tell stories that extend beyond the campaign trail, into his personal life. The majority of undecided voters are not bigots or cynics - they're just waiting for him to invite them in.

Obama has every advantage a candidate could ask for, and Tuesday night may be his opportunity, not just to extend his lead in the polls, but to upset the undisputed champion of the town hall meeting.

[Cross-post from HuffingtonPost.]

McCain To Women: Gullible Is Not In The Dictionary

At noon ET today, John McCain announced his choice for vice presidential candidate: Alaska governor Sarah Palin. And with that pick, the 72 year-old Senator sent a clear message to female voters: I think you’re idiots.

The man known for his public use of the C- word and his conspiratorial laugh when Hillary Clinton, his distinguished Senate colleague, was described as a “bitch” has grown convinced that he can win her voters. He’s spent the past two weeks trying to drive a wedge between Hillary’s female supporters and Obama with triangulation and passive-aggressive, disingenuous messaging.

He's made his strategy no secret. McCain clearly believes that women will vote for other women simply because they’re women. His choice of a pro-life creationist who is dead set on drilling in her own beautiful back yard is proof of that fact. By taking a staunch anti-choice stand, Sarah Palin virtually betrays the interests and longstanding struggles of American women – much the way her position on ANWR drilling betrays and endangers the well-being of her home state.

And John McCain’s statement of his intent to nominate conservative activist judges with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade is further anathema to women’s rights over their own bodies. But women are gullible, he believes. They'll vote their kind, because they go with heart over head. Emotion over reasons.

Sen. McCain clearly believes that women will vote for him in November – against their own best interests – simply because he tapped a woman to be his vice presidential candidate. A choice that would put a severely unqualified, uninformed person a heartbeat away from The Button – weakening American standing and putting our national interests at risk.

But, according to John McCain, women aren’t concerned with that kind of detail. That’s man stuff.

Hothead McCain

Over on TalkingPointsMemo, David Kurtz brings up the Obama camp's new line of attack branding McCain as a "reckless hothead," and asks "does it have a chance of working?"

I say the answer is yes - it has a chance of working. I'm not saying it will work, and I'm not saying it's the best message ever. But it has a definite chance of working, for a few reasons.

First and foremost, it's consistent with the way the public already views McCain. Other memes, which should be more damaging - the Bush III meme, especially - require a bit of swimming upstream. For years, McCain has held the title of Maverick in the eyes of the public and the press. And, while he no longer deserves that title, it will take a lot to convince low-information voters of that fact.

Whereas, with the trigger-happy meme, it goes in lock-step with everything we know about the man. Even what we (and by we, I mean the press & the electorate) like about him. It is one thing that is consistently true all the way back down the narrative line. Now, Obama doesn't have to trot out a bunch of Phillip Butlers the way the Swift Boaters did in '04 or talk about the C-word if he doesn't want to get his hands dirty. There's plenty of poorly chosen one-liners, Senate floor tantrums and Iraq War grandstanding that will do the job just fine.

And secondly, it subtly ties McCain in with Bush - in a way that's much more effective than hammering home "Bush's Third Term" over and over again. It's effective because it plays on the same emotions - the war fatigue, the sense that Americans are dying for our president's (vice president's?) whim.

If Team Obama gets this point across, then the only card McCain has available to him will backfire sensationally. Every time he tries to talk about judgment, experience, the 3am phone call, he will be undermined by his own carefully-nurtured narrative. At least, there's a chance of that.

Contractor Clinton vs. Architect Obama (To Win the Working Class, Obama Must Speak Their Language)

Earlier in the campaign, I used an analogy to illustrate the difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each see a car for the very first time. Hillary opens the hood and asks “how does it work?” Barack gets in the driver’s seat and muses “where can we go with it?”

The analogy was meant to describe their divergent approaches to government: Hillary the policy wonk vs. Barack the big-picture reformer. But as Senator Obama struggles to wrest the fiercely loyal blue collar vote from Senator Clinton, the analogy takes on new meaning.

Beyond the Clichés
For all the clichés of identity politics – the racial divide, the generation gap, the culture wars – the pundits have missed a more fundamental distinction. Call it forest/trees, process/product or left brain/right brain – these are the true differences between the two candidates, and they’re reflected to a T by their supporters.

Demographers are fond of pointing out that Obama is a hit with college-educated populations, while Clinton retains her base of union workers (despite Obama’s near-monopoly on union endorsements) – and the quick translation into economic terms seems like a no-brainer. But “Bittergate” notwithstanding, the causal relationship has been overstated: people don’t support Obama because they’re rich and no one pulls the lever for Hillary simply because they're poor.

There is no logical, policy-based reason for “down-market” Democrats to prefer Sen. Clinton to Obama any more than there is for gun owners to. Hillary’s personal narrative contains little class struggle and her policies are certainly no friendlier to the working man. (In fact, Hillary’s reticence to move the cap on Social Security tax suggests more sympathy for the upper middle class.) The difference between the two lies in how they draw their conclusions and, more importantly, communicate them to voters. Some people respond viscerally to broad calls for sweeping change. Others demand specific, concrete, policy-oriented solutions: what does it mean for me?

While the blue collar/white collar distinction provides a convenient shorthand, it rings true in a manner that goes well beyond income level. By and large, blue collar jobs are tactical jobs. They’re focused on the individual elements that make up a whole: building, assembling, diagnosing, repairing. People who devote their lives to these pursuits are tactical thinkers, they break a mission down to its inherent steps and proceed incrementally.

Architects vs. Contractors
Nowhere is this distinction more apparent than in the construction industry. Architects, famous for their lofty plans drawn up in air-conditioned offices, face a disconnect when trying to communicate with contractors. Unless the architect comes to the table armed with a comprehensive understanding of materials, man-hours and job specs, the architect and contractor quickly arrive at an impasse. The artist’s rendering may be beautiful, but without a sound tactical plan, it’s meaningless.

Similarly, Barack Obama’s rendering of a new American architecture sounds gorgeous, but until it’s translated into a concrete roadmap of steps that directly affect Americans it’s, well, just words. Taking on special interests sounds nice, but how does that fill our tanks with gas? Sure, we’re in favor of bringing our country together, but we also want to bring our kids to college.

So, while Obama shows off his working-class bona fides by recounting his days organizing steel workers or reliving his modest single-parent upbringing, he misses a golden opportunity. These voters aren’t interested in whether he is rich or poor (voters tend to assume candidates are rich, regardless); they may not even want to know whether he can relate to their problems. All they want to know is how he will solve them. He’s already won over the architects, now it’s time to work on the contractors.

The Electability Fallacy

Watching the returns roll in last night and suffering through the months-old analysis, it struck me that everyone is spreading the same premise. Promulgated and disseminated by the Clinton camp, this premise maintains that, if Barack Obama loses a constituency to Hillary Clinton in the primary, he’s bound to lose that constituency to John McCain in November. The premise is so prima facie faulty that it’s embarrassing to see intelligent, studied people support it and spout it as their own. Obvious in its short-sightedness and comical in its leaps of logic, it’s still pervasive.

I call this the Electability Fallacy. It devalues entire blocs of Democratic loyalists, overlooks Sen. Clinton’s revered status in the Democratic Party and completely discounts the power and ferocity of the Clinton political machine.

Fallacy 1: Clinton Voters = McCain Voters
Senator Clinton’s rightward veers notwithstanding (furtive trade agreements, threats of war with Iran, attacks on Senator Obama’s patriotism), this Democratic primary remains just that. Both candidates have captured reliable Democratic constituencies, and their supporters are to be commended in their enthusiasm and devotion. But to suggest that Sen. Clinton’s voters will defect to the Republican Party, should Obama win the nomination – voting against generations of tradition and their own self-interest, prolonging a deeply unpopular war and extending disastrous economic policies – is nothing if not hyperbolic.

We’ve seen “down-market” voters opt for much haughtier candidates than Barack Obama, and a young Bill Clinton captured the senior vote against a much older George Bush in 1992. It’s a wonder her supporters don’t cry foul at the insinuation that a Clinton voter in the primary is simply a McCain voter in the general.

Fallacy 2: It’s Easier to Convert Clinton Voters than McCain Voters
Clinton voters are rabid and loyal. As loaded with negatives as she may be (or “baggage,” in her own words), Hillary Clinton is beloved among Democrats. Moreover, Bill Clinton remains the most popular living ex-President and, of all politicians in either party, no one is more revered among Party faithful than the Clintons. No one, perhaps, but Barack Obama. As any political observer will attest, the Clintons do not part with their voters easily.

The support for Hillary Clinton among the Democratic base is much stronger than McCain’s among the Republican base, and to erode her support by 15 percentage points in two weeks in a state as stacked in Sen. Clinton’s favor as Pennsylvania is nothing to scoff at.

Fallacy 3: A Tight Race with Sen. Clinton is a Sign of Weakness
The suggestion that “if Obama can’t beat Hillary Clinton, he can’t possibly beat John McCain and the Republican Attack Machine” is simply naïve, if not disingenuous. We’ve heard it repeated ad nauseam, even by Dr. Evil, Karl Rove himself. In any other primary, this would certainly be a valid – and fearsome – argument. Their bag of tricks is vast and well-documented. An ordinary politician in an ordinary primary might stop short of such tactics, but no one ever accused a Clinton of being an ordinary politician.

As esteemed commentators have pointed out, the Clintons are not afraid to tear their Party down to get back to the White House. The Clintons have never been stellar Democrats, from triangulating on policy to intra-party quarrels and behind-the-scenes back-biting. To believe that Hillary Clinton will abdicate a place she considers home – 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – without a bitter, mean-spirited and, yes, dirty fight is not to know Hillary Clinton at all. There is no better opposition research team than Clinton's and no strategist more comfortable in the muck than Mark Penn (whose strategies still guide the campaign posthumously). Beating Hillary Clinton is no easy task, and the fact that Barack Obama has done so and continues to do so is an unassailable testament to his toughness, his poise and the clarity of his own message.

The question of lasting damage to the Democratic Party is one to consider, and there is a strong argument to be made that a protracted, bitter primary will dampen what would otherwise be a favorable landscape for Democrats. But to further the Clinton spin that this race between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton somehow casts doubt upon Obama’s ability to “close the deal” or “win Democratic constituents” in a general election against John McCain is short-sighted. At best.

A Sucker Speaks Up

I was recently inspired by Reality TV. Wait, there's more: once, in college, I was moved to write a manifesto (which then spurred a bit of a campus mini-movement) after attending a U2 concert. In other words, I’m a sap. Or worse, I suppose: a sucker.

I’ve looked for ways to explain away this sucker tendency. As a writer of stories myself, have I mastered the ability to suspend disbelief? Am I a character-driven sympathizer who over-identifies with compelling personalities? Am I just gullible?

The answer, before you write me off, is an unequivocal No. I’m a genuine, smirking member of the Snark Generation. A TV-referencing, McSweeney’s reading, eye-rolling Gawker commenter. What’s more, I’ve spent the past decade working behind the magic curtain in the marketing and advertising industry. I understand the tricks. I know how to walk the line between false advertising and “enhancing the positive.” I’m a champion parser.

So, how to reconcile the two? What am I doing crying at movies? Why do I own multiple Bright Eyes records? How is it possible that I get goose bumps during the Star Spangled Banner at Yankee Stadium? And isn’t “inspired by Reality TV” an oxymoron?

Let’s start with the last question. The show was Oprah’s Big Give. Oprah’s Big Give is a thinly veiled, shameless advertisement for, well, as many items as they can cram into 40 minutes: Oprah, first and foremost, Ford, to a slightly lesser extent, followed by each of the donated items, services and celebrities who show up to help out. It features “TVLand” contrivances and counterproductive elements like an incongruous, competitive atmosphere. It’s focused on short-term, bombastic displays of charity, rather than on long term solutions. The recipients come secondary – tertiary, even – to the contestants and to Oprah herself.

But at the end of the day, what’s done is done. There are no actors on the show and unless someone is taking everything back once the cameras stop rolling, these are real life-changing events for real Americans with real needs. In one of the lamer bits of a recent episode, the most self-aggrandizing contestant (Rachael) shows up, hurriedly pays a woman’s delinquent heating bill and forwards her two more months. The segment was not well-produced. The narrative thread was missing, the timing was all wrong. It was incongruous for a million reasons. Practically before the woman can wipe the confusion off her face, the team is back in their customized Big Give Ford SUV and zooming toward commercial break. It’s hard not to shake your head, roll your eyes, blog snarkily.

But even as the cameras are on to the next story of contestant in-fighting and incidental charity, the fact is, a poor woman’s life has just changed. And regardless of what ABC or Ford or Oprah’s handlers – or even Oprah herself – intend to get out of the program, there is one person who just got something immeasurable.

There are a million ways to criticize the program. You can call it rigged, contrived, self-aggrandizing, two-faced – maybe even downright hypocritical. But no one can deny the simple fact that the show makes good things happen to deserving people. And if that needs to be packaged within a derivative game-show atmosphere, so be it.

What's so wrong with a television show that sells ads, fulfills the needs of an episodic prime-time format, appeals to some base instincts in order to get ratings, and is making real, tangible changes in American communities in the meantime? Everybody gets what they want, and the greater good is served, ever-so-slightly. In other arenas, this kind of arbitration is the height of success. The kind of win-win-win that makes legends, sells autobiographies and, well... gets ratings. In those arenas, to support such an effort is not gullibility, but insider savvy.

So call me a sucker, if you must. But I know of a woman in Georgia who will agree that to do so is to miss the point entirely.

BARACK OBAMA, YOUR REASONS

That first post was long and filled with the platitudes you've heard ad nauseam over the course of the primary campaign, and I can tell by the look on your face that you're not convinced. You want to know what he's done.

Let's get to it. His time as a community organizer in Chicago is not to be scoffed at. Having spent four years as a community organizer on the none-too-mean streets of Olympia, WA, I can say that it's real work. At times, it's not work at all, it's (to borrow a term) a fight. It's not easy, glamorous or self-serving – especially for an Ivy League grad who would go on to be President of Harvard Law Review.

Barack has run more political campaigns and held elected office for longer than Hillary. He has taken tough political stands that bucked the establishment and special interests. In notoriously corrupt Chicago, he passed ethics reform; he authored and passed a law monitoring racial profiling and videotaping interrogations… and still won the Police endorsement. As a result of his bill, the Washington Post named Illinois "one of the best states in the nation on campaign finance disclosure."

In the Senate, he has passed 19 bills, to Hillary's 10. When he stormed in, trailed by Hosannas, the Senate leadership tried to put Obama in his place by saddling him with a veritable minefield: ethics reform. He authored a law requiring lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle for them. His bills have championed economic reforms, consumer safety, energy and the environment. This post is a very level-headed look (it's titled "I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype") at Clinton and Obama's Senate records, side-by-side. It's long, but enlightening.

Lastly (and I'm sorry, again, if you're tired of hearing this), what's most important and telling is what he didn't do: support the Iraq war or vote to support Bush's preparation for war with Iran. The most crucial quality a President has is judgment. Whoever is elected President will face issues that he or she has never faced before, that no amount of time on either end of PA Ave. can prepare them for. There will be intelligence, there will be advisors, there will be demands of every type of action, but ultimately, the President will exercise judgment.

Every Presidential victory and misstep that we can name through our history – from the LA purchase to recovering from the Depression to every one of our wars and scandals – have boiled down to judgment. I believe the judgment Obama has exhibited to this point, along with his international appeal and progressive post-boomer perspective, are just what we need to restored the United States to a position of leadership.

OK, I've said enough. I hope I didn't overwhelm you or come off as preachy! Now it's back to integrated digital marketing solutions...

BARACK OBAMA, MY REASONS

OK, so. Let's kick this thing off.

Barack Obama. Let me start by saying that there seem to be two schools of thought about the Presidency: the President as leader and the President as chief executive. I think this cuts to the heart of the debate in the Democratic Party right now, and illuminates the utter disbelief that seems to be coursing through Clinton camps these days (even though Bill was more former than latter).

I recently told a friend that if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama saw a car for the first time, Hillary would say "how does it work?" Barack would say "where can we take it?" And my decision this election is based on my deep concern about where we're being taken.

Let me say that there is no doubt as to Hillary's immense ability as a lawmaker and politician. She's clearly gifted and brilliant and I don't think anyone - even those on the Right - will disagree. But she's also terribly divisive. Forget for a moment the numerous questions about shady backroom deals. Forget the more practical consideration that Hillary Clinton seems to be the only thing that can get Republicans to polls this November, and think about the broader picture. Can we really afford another 51/49 electorate leading to 8+ more years of culture wars? We are at a crucial juncture in our history, and the only way to move forward on the environment, restore our standing in the global community and comprehensively overhaul domestic institutions like Social Security, education and (currently non-existent) healthcare is through a broad coalition, working together with common goals. There's nothing starry-eyed about that, it's pure practicality. We need these people on our side, behind our nominee.

But back to the starry eyes. To be an Obama supporter is to believe that the majority of Americans do share these common goals, and the way to bring about change is to work together to solve them. To be an Obama supporter is also to believe that the hard work ultimately falls more to the citizenry than the government, and inspiring people to take an active role in their government is the best thing any leader can do. As such, to be an Obama supporter is to be proactively engaged.

I find it baffling (and, sure, a bit maddening) when people say with such pride that Hillary is a "fighter." A fighter she may be (putting aside, for a moment, instances where she declined to fight for labor unions or a 12 year-old rape victim), but what if all of us fought these battles? Over 1 million people have donated to Obama's campaign. 10,20,30,000 people show up to hear him speak, many inspired for the first time by a politician.

While Hillary may be a fighter, Obama is creating new fighters. This new wave of civic pride and engagement is, quite frankly, the only thing that can save the United States from the brink of irreparable decline.