Carville says Dems need compelling narrative. What narrative does Clark or

[AP]

Dean or any other candidate offer?

Who is the candidate you like, and what do you think that canidate brings to the table in terms of articulating a narrative that works effectively to tell people what Democrats stand for?

[Dookus]

1. I think Clark

has a strong narrative. The poor boy who works his way up, graduates from West Point, dedicates his life to military service, and remains a liberal.

I think the weak on defense angle has hurt us a lot.

That being said, I don't think Clark will run in 2008. He has no position from which to run. This year he was recently-enough SACEUR, but 4 years from now, that'll be ancient history.

Similarly, Dean and Edwards will both have been out of office for a long time, and I'm not sure that's helpful when running for President. I think voters want somebody who's "in the game".

[AP]

I'm not sure "gosh, can you believe this guy is a liberal" is compelling.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I do think trying to patch weaknesses isn't that compelling. Will voters be impressed when they think, "oh, the Democrats are running a general because they know they're weak on defense"?

As far as being "in the game" goes, Tsongas was an early favorite in '92 who was out of the game. Dean was out of the game and he was an early favorite. Lincoln was out of the game. Eisenhower was out of the game. I'm sure there are more.

[Dookus]

6. well

I don't see it in any way as "patching a weakness". I think it's simply making the case that liberalism and defense are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, the people you mention were out of the game, but not for very long. Basically, they were all in it within one election cycle.

[RobbyRoo]

2. Carville is a hack

Carville and his wife Mary are a vaudeville act. She's SO far to the right and he is SO adament for the left. I have a hard time believing that either their views or their relationship is for real.

As for your question, I think Al Gore with the ANGER he showed this year could be a great candidate in four years.

[AP]

5. Anger isn't a compelling narrative.

As for Carville being a hack, well whatever. About 18 months ago I said over and over again that the Dem nominee has to offer a compelling narrative about what the Democrats stand for. Regardless of what you think about Carville's marriage, he's right about Democrats needing to represent and present a compelling narrative.

[madfloridian]

15. He helped the kill the one with the strongest narrative for the people.

He and Begala. On TV. Over and over. They are Clinton's men, they want Clinton's message.

Clinton wanted NAFTA, he got it. Clinton does not want the issue of gays intruding, so Dean who stood up for them, was OUT.

Rubin, Clinton's treasury secretary, told Dean NOT to oppose NAFTA and outsourcing or he would not get support.

Well, now, you want change? We had a chance.

And I do not expect you to agree with me on anything at all, but them are the facts....we will go right and righter. Because TPTB say so.

[AP]

17. They were probably worried about Dean because they could see how someone

who was from a perceived liberal state, who didn't really say all that much about race or class that was going to energize middle and working class people or African Americans, and who was certainly going to be used to get out the religious right vote, might be trouble for the Democrats in 2004.

[madfloridian]

26. Not that reason at all. It was his anti-war and his pro civil unions.

Carville is involved in Venezuela against Chavez, just as the other "party" democrats are. This party is NOT anti-war, and they want to disassociate themselves from the social issues.

[AP]

32. Carville aparently left his A-game behind in Venezuela. I am anti-war, pro

civil unions, and pro-Chávez, but I too thought it would be suicide to run an anti-war, pro-civil unions governor from VT who said things I perceived as really bad about race, class, taxes and middle class opportunity.

So, kill the messenger. But the argument against Dean was pretty reasonable.

[madfloridian]

37. You believe in these things, but you would run away from them?

Then I find that very sad indeed. You would run away from your beliefs rather than take a stand and try to get a platform for them.

No wonder we lost if that is how folks feel.

"when you trade your values
for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no
values -- so you keep losing"
Howard Dean 2004

[AP]

48. To win elections, so that we have presidents who can make real changes.

You don't make policy during the campaign. You make it after you're elected.

And it's not "running away from them" when you do everything you can to get elected so that you can pursue them.

[IrateCitizen]

28. AP, I'm wondering if you can see the irony in your statement...

Your statement could also apply to Kerry.

From a perceived liberal state? Check.
Didn't say much about race or class? Check.
Going to be used to get out the RR vote? Check.

[AP]

33. Like Carville, I probably would have gone crying to the Kerry campaign

with six weeks to go.

However, apparently Carville said something which had some impact, because that campaign was firing on all cylinders in the last six weeks.

[JNelson6563]

34. No, they let the Rethugs frame the debate

Want to know my source?

Senator Carl Levin. I had a private chat with him during primary season and he said the Dem Party was likely to go with a cand. with a military background for obvious reasons.

When we stop letting the Rethugs hijack the language and frame the debate, we will win. I told the good Senator this. I wonder if he recalled it on November 3. I wll ask next time I see him.

Julie

[madfloridian]

38. Well, Julie, that worked bigtime didn't it? But we will do it again.

We just don't learn. I mean no doubt we won with that, right?

[IrateCitizen]

60. No, WE learn. It's the party elites who don't.

That just emphasizes the need to take over the DNC from the ground up.

[madfloridian]

68. I agree.

:hi:

[tishaLA]

44. This is the important point!

It isn't which issues we face in 2008--we can be sure we will be facing increased poverty and an erosion in civil rights/civil liberties--but that we have someone who can tell a story with a vision about where the country must move.

This is what Obama does so well. When you listen to him, you think you are in a different political conversation than everyone else because he knows how to make discourse respond to his message instead of the other way around. The democratic party interests this year largely emerged from republican concerns and we didn't articulate them with the felicity of george's campaign. There were notable exceptions, like the efforts to make outsourcing and stem cell research important, but the Kerry campaign never spent the time or energy to make them centerpieces of an alternate version of America's future.

[AP]

46. Hey, I was a big advocate of not trying to run a candidate with a uniform.

I thought it was a "mexed missage" -- if you want voters to think about economic issues, don't run a candidate who gives the Republicans a chance to talk about military service constantly.

At times when Democrats had more control over the debate -- when they ran war heroes like Kennedy -- they still didn't run their candidates as military heroes. They ran them as heroes of the middle and working class.

And the same thing goes for civilians. Civilians who only talk about war (ie, most Republicans) lead to the same bad ends: people only thinking about war.

Having said that, the last six weeks of the Kerry campaign almost proved that theory wrong.

[sangh0]

59. If Dean could have framed the debate, he would have won

Instead, the media framed him.

When Kerry can't stop the media, it's "Kerry let the repukes frame the debate"

When Dean can't stop the media, it's "The media framed Dean"

[JNelson6563]

93. Please don't put words in my mouth

or anyone else's Sangho. I said the Dems let the Rethugs frame the debate. Period. From beginning to end.

It's true too and I suspect, deep down, you know it. It's time for intellectual honesty with and among ourselves. Until that happens, we lose.

Julie

[mark414]

30. i question the relationship

maybe it's because a close friend's older sister slept with carville

maybe not

[Malikshah]

3. The narrative doesn't matter as long as Carville and the other

MOTS CW asswipes disregard it.

A new group of MoreOfTheSame ConventionalWisdom-Anonymous must be created.

Carville Brazile etc need to be put out to pasture.

[htuttle]

4. First, Carville should put the trash can back on his head

Second, "compelling narrative"? Wha....? How about telling the truth, straight out populist style? Works for Feingold in the 'red counties' across Wisconsin. When jobs are needed and spin is provided instead, people see through it. I don't think you can spin an empty stomach.

But if nobody is out there 'telling it like it is' (or at least giving he APPEARANCE of telling it like it is), people assume the state of things is 'normal' and worry about other concerns to decide their vote.

Maybe THAT is the compelling narrative: "here's the truth, no holds barred." And walk the walk. Feingold wouldn't be Feingold if he took big corporate donations. Common wisdom would say he puts his election at risk by avoiding the big money, but the wisdom on the ground says that he'd risk his election if he TOOK the money.

I still think Carville should put the trash can back on his head, however.

[AP]

12. Nobody said the compelling narrative shouldn't be built on the truth.

I don't think "jobs, health care, education" is winning the day if people don't understand how those issues fit into a bigger philosophy of what Democrats stand for, and if they don't see how their candidates live and represent that philosophy.

This isn't brain surgery. Carville is exactly right.

[tishaLA]

7. The question is not which narrative they offer

but which narrative they can construct and make believable. Frankly, in terms of pure narrative, Clark and Edwards had the most compelling narratives of any of the candidates in 2004--both quintessentially Franklinesque stories about pulling onesself up by the bootstraps and all that...but those stories are a dime a dozen. They don't have to bring it to the table, but to be able to articulate a sompelling narrative that glosses over inconsistancies and coheres with the cultural moment.

The problem is that we don't know what the cultural moment will require four years from now. Clark's narrative was potentially quite effective this year because of the focus he placed on military strength and family values; Edwards' two Americas narrative was effective because of economic disenfranchisement and America's unending problems with race privilege.

In terms of narrative, then, the idea is that it has to be written closer to the moment so it engages in the cultural zeitgeist. It isn't preordained and it isn't necessarily autobiographical. If it were, there is no way george could have gotten into office.

Sorry in advance for typos. Spell check is funky for me today.

[AP]

14. I agree that the candidate has to be right for the historical moment.

And I've said that as recently as last Wednesday, I believe.

However, I do think it's not to difficult to draw out the arc -- to see where Bush is taking America -- and to reasonably guess at who they're thinking about running in 2008. (I think it's pretty clear that class is going to be a bigger issue in 2008 than it is now.)

I do hope that the Democrats have a range of candidates ready to go to cover all the contingencies. But I think I can guess which ones will be the most relevant.

[JohnKleeb]

20. hmm on regards to class

I think Warner would be good at that, he can IMO unite well to do people and more poor people. He's been a great success for the state but I don't see him as the one to be right for a historical moment, Kerry gave me that impression somehow.

[bemildred]

8. I think getting rid of Carville is a compelling narrative. nt

[madfloridian]

10. Yes, I agree.

I do not understand the hold he has on folks here.

[madfloridian]

9. We had our narrative, still do. Read what I posted yesterday.

There was this same message throughout his campaigning.

http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2004110801010

"There will not be retreat on behalf of the Democratic Party," Dean said, exhorting the audience to make the United States the strongest nation in the world in moral values and moral leadership.

Dean emphasized the importance of the Democratic Party's commitment to its core values and principles, saying that the nation did not need "two Republican parties." He was emphatic about not sacrificing Democratic values for public appeal. We are in the middle -- we can't do this anymore. We have come too far," he said.

I think he words this part well:
"Dean emphasized the importance of appealing to Southern evangelical Christians, who he said hold more common values with Democrats than Republicans. Echoing rhetoric from his Dartmouth appearance last week, Dean said Republicans focus on "guns, God, gays and abortion," issues that divide and frighten the American people rather than unite them.

Democrats and evangelical Christians are both concerned about economic stability, jobs and job opportunities and education, Dean said, adding that Americans need to stop dividing themselves through religion...."

[sangh0]

18. Thats is NOT a narrative

A narrative is a STORY.

"the nation did not need "two Republican parties" " is an OPINION, not a narrative

[RyomaSakamoto]

11. MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Have the MORAL FORTITUDE to STAND-UP to the reTHUGs and LISTEN to weTHEpeople.

[DELUSIONAL]

13. how is this for a narrative -- COUNT THE GOD-DAMN VOTES

Or get rid of the e-voting machines.

What does it matter about "compelling narrative" when the media doesn't report what the democrats are saying?

What does it matter about "compelling narrative" when the vote total can be manipulated?

The fault isn't ours -- we have the majority values -- we believe in the Constitution and democracy -- THEIR side wants to kill, murder and/or execute anyone who doesn't agree with their talking snake point of view.

I guess his wife is giving him kool-aid.

[opihimoimoi]

21. The DNC has to come off the Level they at and Come, see us grass

roots people.

There are tons of good observations and insights here on the DU. Not all are gold and winners but the chore is to look for the good ones to take a closer look.

They should open a Dialogue with us...what they afraid of...DEFEAT?

Come, we go drink already.

[LibDemAlways]

22. The only "compelling narrative"

I'm interested in at this point is a full accounting of how vote fraud took place and what steps are taken to rectify it. If this doesn't happen, now, there will be no need for an election in four years. Why waste time, energy, and money on a foregone conclusion?

[sangh0]

23. That's not a narrative

What does it matter about "compelling narrative" when the media doesn't report what the democrats are saying?

Because when our statements are consistent with a narrative, it becomes easier for the media to report on it.

[Leilani]

16. I think Carville is right!

Remember, Carville was involved with 2 wins...

Carville cares deeply about the Dems..

Anybody read Newsweek? He was so upset during the campaign at the way things were going, that he went to Kerry headquarters in DC, & broke down crying.

As far as individual candidates, I think there is a more serious problem overall with the party, & it needs to be fixed.

[AP]

19. He also cried in The War Room talking about how important it was to him

to have a Democrat win the White House.

[madfloridian]

24. Carville is part of the problem, and it is serious one.

He may care deeply, but not for the ones who want progressive values. He may talk big, but that is all.

[AP]

27. I think you're imputing too much power on Carville. Carville feels...

...basically the same way I do about Presidential electoral politics. Like me, Carville mostly has the power of a persuasive argument. It's not like he's pulling strings. If his arguments are persuasive, people respond to them. If they aren't, people ignore them.

Basically, your argument is 'kill the messenger.'

[madfloridian]

42. Sorry, his persuasive argument was kill Dean.

It was done publicly and insultingly. You seem to think you can just forget standing for anything.

I think Carville has his nerve to kill the candidate who was saying those things all along....it won't be forgiven, and Clinton's hands were on that bigtime.

[AP]

51. Lots of DU'ers made same arguments Carville made. Why single out Carville?

[sangh0]

56. Anger

.

[madfloridian]

70. You have "Carville" in the subject line of the OP.

That is why.

[AP]

74. I ask a quetion about what people think their favorite candidate offers...

...using as a frame a reference to Carville from today's news, and instead I get a lot of ridiculous hating on Carville. I said the same thing as Carville countless times. Why don't you argue that Democrats should get rid of me?

[sangh0]

80. Because anger blinds people

and they stop thinking about everything but their anger

[AP]

82. Too true.

[American Tragedy]

66. Many of us opposed Dean because we forsaw a disaster of another kind

Look, what freaked me out is when I heard George McGovern muse that Dean's presidential campaign reminded me a great deal of his own.

My God, McGovern was a widely acknowledged good and decent man running against a miserable and costly quagmire, and opposing Nixon of all people; a man palpably lacking in charisma, whose fatal scandal was already beginning to emerge, whose plan to end the war turned out to be escalation. Agreed, the circumstances are not precisely the same, but based on these recent election results, what reason do you have to believe that it would turn out much differently now than it did then?

[madfloridian]

69. Well, we must NOT have decent men running. Kill them all.

Dean has charisma, the message, and the growing base of support.

I hope to hell he goes 3rd party with the others who have no voice.

Then you guys can pacify the GOP and crucify progressives.

[sangh0]

76. Dean supports the Democrats and Kerry and Edwards

and all of the people who you say don't want a progressive candidate.

If these Dems don't want a progressive candidate, and Dean does, then why is Dean supporting Dems?

[AP]

78. That's a non-sequitur.

Dean had _a_ message. The point of this thread and much of the more interesting debates at DU is whether he or anyone else had the best message.

I don't think Dean had the best message for reasons similar to the one to which you're responding.

Dean's campaign -- more concerned with being anti-Bush on only the issue of war, but ignoring issues like whether the tax code over-burdened the working and middle class, and his insane allegory about race (the one about gender discrimination) -- was at risk of being McGovern Part Deux.

[AP]

92. You're mad at Carville because he had an opinion different from yours.

And you're trying to pretend it was about principles.

Dean entered the race to be the health care candidate. When he got more attention from the media being the anti-war candidate he rode that donkey until the rest of the party sensibly criticized him. There was a reason the Democrats weren't the anti-war party this year. It's because it never works, and they knew that that this election was so important to millions of Americans that they had an obligation to campaign effectively and smartly and in a way that would result in a victory.

I suspect that some people think Dean was being unprincipled by abandoning health care as his issue and riding being anti-war, regardless of where it lead (a position that he drew so narrowly that he had no problem with Afghanistan or any war Israel might want to start in the Middle East, or with the 87 billion dollar handout to Halliburton).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. Madfloridian, I hear you . . .

I will NEVER forgive the Clintons and their friends for what they did to Howard Dean.

Carville was an accomplice and I don't trust a word he says. The last I heard, he wants to move the party to the "mushy middle."

F- that from this Deaniac . . . howdeani

[sangh0]

25. None of the Dems speak of a narrative. Only one comes close

Edwards.

Edwards offers a vision of One America that could easily be turned into a narrative. Dems ignore this at their own peril.

[JohnKleeb]

31. Edwards really was good at telling it well

Thats one of the things I came to like about him.

[madfloridian]

29. The party does not want a progressive agenda. Bottom line.

.

[IrateCitizen]

35. Wrong. The party elites don't want a progressive agenda.

I would say that the majority of the party wants a progressive agenda. Just look at how significant of a majority of the delegates to the convention were anti-war. Yet, we couldn't get a candidate willing to advance a real anti-war alternative.

So long as the party elites are joined at the hip with various corporate interests and Wall St., it will avoid progressive populism like the plague, simply because the two cannot realistically co-exist at the same time.

So, we lose... and lose... and lose... and lose again. :shrug:

[AP]

39. Set the unwinnable idea of running as anti-war, and you had a field that

was incredibly progressive. Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton and Kerry were very progressive on the core issue of which direction you think power should flow in America. On taxes, protecting the value of labor and eliminating the mechanisms for massive transfers of wealth into private hands (prescription drugs and energy costs) the democrats were very progressive.

No corporate whores made it into the final round. In fact, Edwards has never accepted PAC money in his life, and Kerry accepted none in this race.

Sorry if they looked like conservatives, and sorry if they didn't fall into the trap of running as anti-war candidates. But that's how you win elections and then make sure that America doesn't get into imperialistic wars.

[madfloridian]

45. And again I say:

"when you trade your values
for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no
values -- so you keep losing"
Howard Dean 2004

[sangh0]

54. Sloganeering

is the easiest form of demagaugery

It's even easier when it's cut 'n paste

[AP]

55. My values are economic opportunity, a fair tax code, social justice, good

jobs, opportunity for all.

I heard more of that from Edwards and Kerry than I heard from Dean.

[madfloridian]

79. BUT you said this:

"Sorry if they looked like conservatives, and sorry if they didn't fall into the trap of running as anti-war candidates. But that's how you win elections and then make sure that America doesn't get into imperialistic wars..."

You are wrong. You run on principal and what you believe.

Sorry they did not fall in to the "trap" of being anti-war? What a sad statement.

[sangh0]

83. "You run on principal and what you believe." - You mean like Dean?

Dean lost. That's not proof that "running on principle" is a winning strategy.

Next you'll explain why the Maginot Line should be maintained

[AP]

85. You govern on principles. You have to win an election to govern.

I think it's unprincipled to behave in a way you know would never get you elected. You owe it to all the people who suffer under the fascists to do what you can to win elecitons and make real changes in their lives.

I'm not advocating running on fear or any of that other bullshit. I'm talking about campaigning like a smart person. Focusing your campaign on the war, which you know the media wants, just because it gets you attention and even though you know it's going to make it harder for the Democratic Party's strong issues to rise to the top is unprincipled, if you ask me.

[madfloridian]

89. I focus on the war, the NCLB, the huge corporate tax cuts, social programs

I focused on them, and our party was complicit in letting them happen. Now they are wondering what happened.

[sangh0]

91. IOW, you're focused on the past

How progressive of you

[IrateCitizen]

57. Oh, they both fell into a trap, AP...

I heard both Kerry and Edwards say repeatedly that they voted for the IWR based on the intelligence they had at the time, and that they both believed that Iraq was a credible threat at the time.

The thing that kills me though is that someone like Sen. Russ Feingold didn't seem to think that Iraq was a credible threat, or that the intelligence told him so. Feingold's Democratic colleagues in the Senate all pressured him to vote for the Patriot Act and for the IWR, reminding him that he would be in a tough re-election campaign and he didn't want to hurt his re-election chances.

Feingold, to his immense credit, didn't vote for the resolution, just as he didn't vote against the Patriot Act. He then had to face a formidable, millionaire opponent in his re-election bid. Due to his stands, not in spite of them, he handily won re-election, polling some 135,000 votes more than the Presidential ticket in Wisconsin.

The GOP was able to turn the IWR vote back against Kerry and Edwards so many times it wasn't funny. Maybe I'm biased because I opposed this war from the beginning and got to the point that I would have gone to military prison rather than be sent over there (while I was still in the Army Reserves). But I just have a hard time seeing their stances as anything BUT political opportunism. I NEVER got past those votes they made, no matter how much I tried.

I guess this just helps prove Kevin Phillips' assessment on last week's NOW that we've been stuck with nothing but second-rate Presidential candidates for some time now, with little else on the horizon for the foreseeable future. I don't think that political courage and principle are too much to ask for in a leader.

But hey, that's just me -- I operate from the progressive fringe.

[Nordic]

41. Yeah. WE'RE the party, not them

How about this for a radical idea --- let the people who actually make up the party able to VOTE on who runs the party?

What a notion? For something called the "Democratic" party? Democracy!

Naaah, it'll never work

[Nordic]

36. clark used to be a GOPer, saw the light -- there's a story for ya

I think this is the reason I'd like him to head things up.

He's not a professional politico either. He's the kind of guy you WANT to get into politics.

[American Tragedy]

49. By the way, I thought it was ironic that Lieberman of all people

had the audacity to doubt Clark's credibility as a real Democrat.

[Abelman]

75. AARGH

No. He wasn't. He was never a Republican. He attended one fund-raising dinner. That's as close to being a Republican as he ever came. He voted for Clinton twice and for Gore once. The idea that he was a Republican is left over from the primaries and is NOT true.

Please tell all your friends.

[Nordic]

87. I believe I heard him say he voted for Reagan

twice.

[JohnKleeb]

88. and Nixon

I am not dissing the guy but saying what I heard.

[democratreformed]

40. A narrative:

1) Government Accountability
2) People before the powerful
3) Free but Fair trade with emphasis on the rights of workers, human rights, and the
environment.
4) A progressive and fair tax system
5) Protecting the Constitution and the Environment for ourselves and our heirs
6) An informed electorate educated by fair and honest public dialogue
7) Transparent government
8) Protection of voting rights--paper verification for electronic voting.
9) A commitment to insure all Americans equal rights under the law
10) Courts peopled by those sworn to uphold the law as opposed to advancing
ideologies.
11) A government that provides opportunities for its citizens
12) International law trumps diplomacy; diplomacy trumps force. Force only, only, only, as
a last resort.
13) A multilateral foreign policy which includes both hard power and soft power.
14) People over partisanship
15) Recognition that: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism
16) Programs with a view to the future, not just the next election cycle.
17) Living our family values by promoting our citizens potential with support for public &
college education, health care and jobs.
18. Government promotiin and encouragement of inquiry to develop alternative solutions
for energy independence and high tech job creation
19) Recognition that diversity is our greatest strength
20) Fulfilling our commitments to America's veterans and all men and women who serve
our country.

~Wes Clark

Is this what you are looking for? Even though this is from Wes Clark, these are things that I, personally feel are worth fighting for. One of the saddest things, to me, this year, was "their" ability to make "listening to the people" a bad thing. Isn't that what our elected officials are supposed to do? We need to get back to that.

In short, I think we need to clearly define our values and core beliefs and STICK TO THEM. Our leadership needs to reflect those values and beliefs. That is their job. If not, they don't deserve to lead our party. I will not change my core values and beliefs to reflect whoever "gets the nomination". Who is the right person? I don't know right now. We'll see, I guess, if that person ever comes forward.

[tishaLA]

52. I love Clark, but that's not a narrative

that's a litany. A list. What's the story? Where is the denounment?

[democratreformed]

58. I am obviously not understanding narrative.

Are you (or the original poster) looking for a good "story"? Duh, stupid me, I guess that is what a narrative is.

I guess I just think we need to be looking WAY beyond that.

If it's vision, the Clark has that to offer. He has a "100 year vision for America".

[sangh0]

61. For an example

think of how repukes tell the story of an American that used to be. An America that thrived on hard work, personal responsibilty, liberty and freedom from govt regulations.

We need to do something similar, but instead of looking back, we need to look forward to an America that is still yet to come. An American where everyone has an opportunity to prosper and everyone's rights are protected. An America that is One America.

(Please note: I didn't mention one issue)

[democratreformed]

71. Okay, I got it. Thanks. And please forgive my ignorance.

I can agree that we need to do this. But, again, I think it needs to come from US - not from someone else and then we blindly follow along. Of course, if someone comes up with a narrative we can wholeheartedly endorse, then it can come from them.

But, I am ready for US to determine the direction of our party - not the higher-ups.

Funny, but I am just now beginning to fully understand what Howard Dean was saying. Of course, I understood it before, but just wanted to keep believing that the current leadership in our party was competent and had our best interests at heart. I am losing that faith more and more by the "silent" day.

[AP]

63. It's telling people what you believe in, with a beginning, middle and end.

"I believe in ____ because of ______ and I see it going like this:_________."

And it helps if your candidates are like characters in that story with motivations that are easy to understand, and whose actions make sense within that narrative.

None of it has to be fiction. The most compelling stories are often the truest.

[leftchick]

43. fuck carville...

the only thing "Dems need" is an honest election...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

100. Got that right n/t

[American Tragedy]

47. I agree with this idea in theory

but, in brutal honesty, what compelling narrative has Bush put forth?

Whatever it is, it surely doesn't manifest itself in his life story. I think that the past few elections should tell us first of all that Americans really don't care all that much about miitary heroes or rags-to-riches stories.

[tishaLA]

62. The narrative isn't autobiographical

that's the point. george's narrative is this: a nation of faith where god helps us march toward freedom in a kind of global manifest destiny. That is a simple, easily comprehensible narrative for a large number of people. Even people who don't agree with it can vote for it because it fits into an archetypical version of American identification.

As I said upthread, if george ran on his autobiography, or if the narrative were autobiographical, he could never be seen in public. But it's about engagin in simple, unsophisticated messages and employing them like we would any other weapon. This is why George Lakoff is so important to read....

[sangh0]

64. bush* uses several compelling narratives

One of the most appealing is how he decided to stop drinking and supposedly "straightened out". The story of someone redeeming him/herslef is a powerful one. This is the basis of a million stories, beginning with Homer.

[Leilani]

94. Good point!

And the Fundies love it, because he was "saved."

[sangh0]

96. EVERYONE loves a story about a rescue

It's a "mythic" image and it runs deep. Joseph Campbell goes into this idea in detail.

[Lisa]

103. and not just that -- the idea of an ordinary man being singled out by God

Since 9/11, Bush and his staff have repeatedly said that they believe he was selected by the Almighty (hey, I guess it beats being selected by the Supreme Court!) to lead the world through a time of conflict.

Just to build on what others have already mentioned so far -- it combines a bunch of compelling myths. For example, that someone of normal or sub-normal abilities could be "rescued" from a dead-end life, and reshaped by the Divine to do great things ... this is a dominant theme in children's literature (that you are actually a prince or a wizard or a super-warrior) -- and also in all those reality TV contests.

And Bush hardly needs to actually BE humble when that "rescue" myth is in place -- it immunizes him against any charges of arrogance ("Hey, I've already admitted I was way down there in the gutter!") or people pointing out his obvious flaws.

Noah, Joan of Arc, countless sports figures -- there are so many people in history whose stories have followed this pattern (and admittedly, been reshaped so as to fit it better). People really want to believe this -- that through their own initiative or through divine intervention, or both, they too might become famous.

[andym]

50. Edwards: 2 Americas, Clark: Return to Service, Dean: Take back America

Dean: take back America. Will be even more powerful in 2008 after Bush gets through with this country. Personal resonance= Dean is a fighter. Plus he has been showing quite the sense of humor in the popular culture. Have you heard his ad for Yahoo on the radio.

Clark: Return America to it's roots of Service (Kennedy-esque). People helping each other in as a way to return to its foundation of caring about one's neighbor. Personal resonance= most of his life spent in serving his country. Story of how his life of service led him from humble beginnings to the near top of his profession. Helps to unite people.
Service resonates with Christian values, which makes it a way to capture back some of the high-ground from one-issue religious voters.


Edwards: Two Americas, one left behind. RFK-esque. Personal resonance
with story of rags to riches. Personal resonance: Lawyer fighting for the little guy. Middle class will care about the America left behind in either times of wealth, or times of financial crisis. One of these situations likely to exist in 2008.

All three narratives are powerful, and may be the key in 2008. We'll just have to see how things look then.

A nice combination would be Dean's story with either Clark's or Edward's. Perhaps a new champion will emerge who can take up the mantle.

[Leilani]

53. I was a Clark person

& I still like him, but the problems are with the Dem party...not individual candidates. I don't think this is the time for advocating specific people, because then we go back into "Primary Wars" mode.

Let's try to solve the big picture before we pick a candidate.

Already, people are splintering between progressives & centrists.

We need to figure a way to keep everyone in a big tent...if we splinter, we are doomed.

[Quixote1818]

65. Clark was the ONLY candidate talking about VALUES

He had great speeches on why Democratic Values were sincere and Republican Values were not good for Families. That's why Clark did so well in RURAL towns!!!!!! HE SPANKED KERRY IN SMALL TOWNS! I wills say it a hundred times but no one will ever get it here! CLARK WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO HAD THE RIGHT MESSAGE AND COULD HAVE BEAT BUSH!!!! IF HE COULD TAKE OKLAHOMA FOR CHRIST SAKE HE COULD WIN ANY PLACE! HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS DOES IT HAVE TO BE FOR US DEMOCRATS TO SEE A WINNING STRATEGY!

[AP]

67. Just to set the record straight...

...Edwards talked about values too. He had a part in his stump speach during the primaries about not running from a discussion about values. Also, in NH and SC, I notice that the farther out Edwards got from the cities, the better he did.

[sangh0]

73. Kerry spoke about values also

On National TV during the debates. Tens of millions saw it.

[AP]

81. Third Debate. Answer about religion. Fucking brilliant. Best articulation

I've ever heard about role of religion in politics.

[sangh0]

84. Yes, but unfortunately

it wasn't part of a "frame" or a narrative, so for many, it was just another boring piece of logic and reasoning.

For us, it was brilliant, but we're wonks.

[AP]

86. Again, too true.

[IrateCitizen]

95. The problem was it wasn't a central theme...

This is what I've been talking about until I'm blue in the face about VALUES lately.

Kerry's answer to this question was, I believe, brilliant. Also brilliant was his statement that he was "... tired of politicians who talk about 'family values' who don't value families."

The problem wasn't his specific answers to these specific questions, it was that he didn't make these two things central themes to his campaign. He didn't articulate these things over and over and over again so that his campaign would connect back to these specific values.

Of course, in doing so, he would have gravely offended the vehemently anti-religion contingent here at DU. But he might just have connected a little more with a few more people in the population, a vast majority of whom identify themselves as religious/spiritual. John Kerry was also obviously a man whose core values were founded in his religious faith, it's a part of who he is. He shouldn't have diminished that part of him -- he should have spoken of it repeatedly.

In any event, hopefully it's a lesson we learn for the future, because if we want to re-establish the progressive movement, we're going to have to talk of it in terms of the core values it represents, so that it connects with people on an emotional level.

[sangh0]

97. I agree wholeheartedly

You point to something that is getting lost in the discussion and that is that it's not enough to just present a list of values the way we presented a list of issues and positions.

We need to tell stories, and we need to repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them and repeat them

[madfloridian]

72. Clark was not the only one talking about values.

Sorry, that is just not true.

[sangh0]

77. Let me guess

Dean!!!

Dean was talking about values.

[Tellurian]

90. Carville was not up to the task...

the way this election was stolen was way beyond the scope of the hard core "Brother Love Travelin Salvation Show" hack. While his brother was asleep on the OR table he should have beat feet to a computer hack and done his homework on how the Diebold software could be compromised to swing the vote to Bush-

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

98. Dean is the man! . . .

He's next in line and will show us the way . . . howdeani

[fshrink]

99. Dems need a compelling sense of history

It's time to lose while serving the people rather than to try to win by betraying the people. No negotiation with the fascists. No negotiations with the worshipers. No more half-ass maneuvers: the right is and has always been better than any of us (even Clinton) at it.

[robbedvoter]

102. Here's one of Clark's speeches

http://clark04.com/speeches/039

But Carville needs to pull his head out of the sand and smell the voter fraud.