The Best Way For Obama To Go Negative: Go Positive

The WP, via CNN, reports that there is now a discussion in the Obama camp as to whether he should go negative in Indiana.

Simply going negative would be a critical error, opening Obama to charges that he would be contradicting the very messages that have inspired his efforts and undergirded his campaign. This is a gap that the Clinton team would surely leap through. He would be further drawn into the swirling chaos that the old politics has created--as the Clinton camp would sure wish-- further enveloping and distracting voters from the fundamental messages of his campaign.

The best way for Obama to go negative is to go positive--clearly, strongly, and powerfully contrasting the method of "kitchen sink" politics, where any statement or position--even statements that are diametrically opposed; any claim, no matter how false; and any trivial distraction can be used simply in the effort to win at any cost, with the genuine effort to move the nation into a more substantive and honest politics--and into an Administration that will be grounded in these principles, rather than the very same methods and distortions that we can so easily see having been employed over the past seven years.

He should relentlessly tie the former method to the politics of the past--and to indicate the consequences for the nation that these politics have wrought--in the loss of national stature, Constitutional and moral authority, economic stability, and our most important treasure, the lives of our sons and daughters to a cause borne of such distortions.

i.e.:

"We have had enough of the negative campaigning of the past. We have seen what it has done to us over the past years--the "kitchen sink" politics of distortion and falsehood, of being willing to make any claim--no matter how true, false, inconsistent or contradictory--to put forward one's personal agenda, has threatened to take this great nation down the drain--financially, in terms of our standing in the world; in terms of our most important and basic treasure--the lives of our sons and daughters--the very future of this nation.

Do we want the same result? The same candidates, using the same old tactics, leading to the same outcomes of the all-too-recent past? Those who will do or say anything to be elected--and then will do or say anything afterward to justify their mistakes?

I say: We need a change from the politics of the past. We need someone who will say enough of the politics of the kitchen sink, of trivia and distortion. It's time to drain the sink. It's time for someone who , instead of fighting to divide the nation in pursuit of victory, will fight for you by saying: We will not play the same old games. That's the old politics. That's the politics that led us into Iraq, that left Osama Bin Ladin free, that led to violations of the Constitution that we solemnly pledge to uphold for this nation, and that has led us to be faced each day with the loss of promise that each new American life represents.

We can be seduced by politics of tactics, of fear. We've seen it before. And we've seen what happens after.

Will you join me in putting this era of old politics behind us, into a new future where you, your country, and the needs of your family and your future come first? Where we step beyond the tactics, distortion, and trivia of the moment, that too often have led to a long and difficult future for our nation, into to a time when the genuine needs of our nation and our country matter most?

Change is never easy. But when it is difficult, it is what we most often need. Will you join me in saying "No" to the kitchen sink politics of the past, to putting the era of old politics, of trivia and tactics, sniping and distortion, behind us? In saying "Yes" to a new and honest future, dedicated to the real needs of the American people, and not to the trivial battles that have divided and distracted this country for so long? To the real changes that this country has needed for the past 7 years, rather than to a continuation of the politics of the past? Will you join me? Can you join me? Let me hear it:

Yes we can (etc.)"

This should help to lead voters away from the churning pool of chaos and incitement, the distracting, impulsive song of the Clinton camp that, in its vague insinuations, pulls people to the seeming attraction and safety of the old--and will to help lead them towards an era where we can leave this ill-thought trivia behind for a considered, honest and principled statesmanship.

Chelsea Morning

This morning's WP has an excellent piece on Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign.

I have also been struck by how the 90s images of a younger Chelsea have been replaced by a woman of substance, intellect, humor and grace.

As one can now expect, the article was followed by comments that barely reach above the limen of sheer expulsion to actual thought. Simple crude attacks.

As an Obama supporter, I find the coarse, degrading, adolescent fire aimed at Chelsea repulsive--a true example of human ignorance, of simple glee in childish degradation.

Chelsea is a genuine, articulate and obviously sincere woman who both admires and cares for her mother; she brings warmth, humor and humanity to her efforts. If only these commenters could bring one-tenth of these qualities to their own impulsive emissions--literally smears of thought and emotion. Criticism is of course, part of a political campaign, and she places herself in a position for critique. However, the vitriolic, semi-coherent glee of some attacks are of another order entirely.

This is a fine woman working to help her mother. See yourself clearly for a moment. Stop it.

Shorter Wall Street Journal

Today's WSJ:

Sen. Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech on race relations last month seemed to put the controversial remarks of his former pastor behind him. But three weeks later, there is evidence of lingering damage.

"It has not been defused," says David Parker, a North Carolina Democratic Party official and unpledged superdelegate. He says his worries about Republicans questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism prompted him to raise the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s remarks in conversations with both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

Shorter WSJ: We're afraid the damage is passing, but we'll do our best to try to keep it going.

Mark Down

...but not out:

After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign. Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.

Clinton campaign statement, via the Nation.

Gamechanger: It's About the War

From ABC News' Political Radar:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the Vice Presidential nomination, according to Republican Strategist Dan Senor. “Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

If true, while unsurprising, given her recent statements of late, which clearly pointed towards such a move, nonetheless a potential gamechanger. Independents and moderate Republicans inspired by Obama will now be fair game for inspirational rhetoric about Rice. and her personal story as an African American woman who has risen to her current position from humble origins, against the odds. Democrats will parry that it's about the man--not the position--and a fractious debate will begin.

To cut through it, Dems will need to refocus the debate upon the war, and Rice's role in decision-making as National Security Adviser, where she was generally regarded as unable to act effectively in the face of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's demands, and was only able to survive by attaching herself directly to Bush--as a surrogate rather than an adviser. She attached herself to Bush then--and should be attached to Bush now.

If she was rolled over by her colleagues, the argument should go, how will she be able to lead in the face of today's conflicts and demands ?

Why Clinton Embellishes

We have three examples from recent days of Clinton's modifications of the truth.

Why do they matter? One might say that many politicians are prone to factual distortions.

What is of particular importance is not only that Clinton distorts the truth, but when she does--and why.

Clinton, as many who know her well and have studied her life closely have indicated, from Dee Dee Myers to Carl Bernstein, has a fundamental difficulty in revealing herself. She is seen by even those who are closest to her as perpetually standing behind a guise, ever prepared for the attack, a characteristic regarded as at times poignant, and at other times Nixonian in its manifestations.

We know from biographies of Clinton, including Bernstein's astute and perceptive "A Woman in Charge" that Clinton's suffered from a harsh and judgmental father, and that this relationship had a deep and significant shaping influence.

On the one hand, it prepared her (indeed, over-prepared her) for quick response, for an all-too-ready response to attack. Yet it also created, beneath the increasingly agile guises and forms of protection, a more fundamental experience of self--that despite the greatest efforts, the most agile displays, of never being quite good enough to measure up to his judgment.

This left her, as it leaves many in such circumstances, with a rueful admiration of and attachment to a seeming strength and sureness that she could never have; and underneath the formidably developed masks of intellect and defensive pretense, a fundamental fear of, in her true self, uncovered, falling short. Many have noted this quality in Clinton, and have drawn it back to this familial source.

As a consequence, beneath the feigned hardness, the feigned casualness, and beneath the years of powerfully developed yet defensively driven skills, there is a tragic, deep and, for a President, highly consequential flaw--one that is most likely to be relevant in those "3 a.m. moments" that she has so readily and repeatedly invoked.

One cannot respond with balance and wisdom from a guise. One's own judgment is critically affected by what one feels they must display (and truly cannot), and by what they believe that they must hide.

From such a position, the "other"--be it a colleague, opponent, or one's view of the "public" at large, is critically distorted. The other is not regarded as a fellow equal, with whom we are shouldering difficult tasks together, in order to determine a better future, but a threatening judge, to be managed and feared; whose response must be calculated to be met with the proper guise--one which must be quickly changed--or covered--if there is a danger that, beneath the mask, one will be found out.

What Clinton shares with other talented, tragic figures is a mistrust of humanity's judgment, and, as a result, an inability to meet them with the full, uncovered gaze of a developed and accepted self. The truth, within such an uncertain experience of self and the judgment of others, is often felt to be not enough.

This is what Obama, in this revolutionary moment, to a greater extent, has. This is what people are connecting with. And, in 3 a.m. moments, this is what we need.

I Misspoke

It was a treacherous night landing. Ice had formed on both of our wings, and as I looked out the port window, I could see it breaking into shards, flying off into the night sky with each near barrel roll of our C-50, highlighted by the flares shooting past on either side of the cabin, turning them into falling prisms of wildly careening light.

As the cabin lurched back and forth and the sounds of rocket fire percussed the urgent, faltering rhythm of our right engine, I unfastened my seat belt, and, finding my center of gravity, rose from my seat, moving past aides who were frozen, stock still in their chairs, arms locked like girders against their arm rests in terror, and walked up the center aisle to the pilot's cabin.

"How long to Kosovo"? I shouted over the screaming whine of the altimeter's alarm, marking our steep descent. The pilot turned, looked at me in shocked recognition--"How...how did you make it up here? No one has ever walked up here in these conditions before! How..."

"Never mind that!" I barked, with what I hoped was a not too stern forcefulness, yet laced with sufficient steel and empathy to create an impression of firm imperturbability. "Check the master FMC! Is it working or has it failed?"

The pilot paused, as if in amazement at my readiness, and then himself awakening to crisis, looked to the Control Display Unit . "It's down! It's down!" he shouted. Beads of sweat began to form on his brow.

I knew what I had to do. "Get out of there!" I commanded, and pulled him from the seat, from where he crumpled to a fetal position on the floor behind me. Stepping over him, I took the chair behind the console.

"Check the Central Maintenance Computers and activate the NAV RAD for alternate radio tuning capability!" I shouted to the co-pilot. He, too, had broken down in tears, his head buried in his hands. I looked to his ID on the console. Another newbie.

Well, this was another one where I would have to go it alone.

Quickly, I tore the scarf from my neck and fashioned it into a crude lasso that could be used for EFIS/EICIS control. Catching the lever with my right hand, I activated the cabin loudspeaker with my left. I knew that the passengers had likely been gulled by the earlier soft patter of the pilot. "Brace yourself! Get ready! These aren't just words!" Then I pulled the lever back hard, sending us rocketing towards the runway.

"You'll never make it!" A voice behind me--I knew that voice, and turned. Richardson! How did he trundle up to the cabin? "Out of here, Judas! And take that quivering beard with you!"

I could feel bolts straining against Pennsylvania steel as I pushed the '50 down, down, down to the ground below us. Suddenly, an explosion punctuated the sky--Hand held rocket fire at 3' o'clock!

I quickly performed the evasive maneuvers that I had learned for so long, and so well. My face became angry, then sad, then gentle, then intensely serious, then was finally rocked by a powerful squealing, an unnatural burst of laughter. That did it! The rocket exploded harmlessly behind us.

Now. Now it was time to take the stick and bring this shaking, careening flight, parts straining against themselves until nearly ready to burst, down to the ground. I put my arms to the twin arms of the FO-AP, set the APC, and with all of the strength remaining in me, began to push the levers down. Straining, I pushed harder. And harder. I could see the runway rising before us in the glare shield. I would have to find the remaining strength to bring it down.

Finally, as if a burst of superhuman might had somehow been delegated to me, I pushed the levers into locked position. I could hear Penn in the cabin shouting "We're landing...We're going down!" as I felt the rough shock of the landing gear snapping into place.

Sparks flew as we hit the runway, bullets ricocheting off of the cabin, one wheel touching pavement. I looked straight through the windshield--the militia, arms at the ready stood at the runway's end. The last obstacle.

I turned the craft hard, sending it hurtling sideways across the pavement. It swept the militia away in a single screaming motion that combined with the screaming that arose from the cabin, as we continued to move towards the small, makeshift terminal, where the dignitaries, negotiators, and heads of state awaited my arrival.

I did not close my eyes. I did not let go of the wheel. I watched--as we ground to a halt just before the doors of the terminal.

I looked fore, at the dignitaries protecting themselves from the sniper fire that raged around them. I looked aft, at the passengers, shaken but safe.

We had arrived. All was good.


Just a moment...

Due to the discovery of a video of the above described occasion, I would like to make a few small corrections. The flight was in fact actually a regularly scheduled chartered flight that was actually flown by the pilot and co-pilot--although the pilot did have a cold, and during the flight, I did at several times give serious attention to our flight conditions (notes indicate that I found it "a bit bumpy"). I would also note that the dinner, Salmon with Creamed Potatoes, was undercooked, and was served with a Riesling that was unusually dry. It is also true that we were met not by a militia, but by a girl's youth soccer team. However, it was necessary for me to dodge a soccer ball as team members demonstrated their often aggressive skills. No other shots were fired.

In short: I misspoke.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

The Clinton Papers: Arrogative Deleted

From Dictionary.com:

ar·ro·gat·ed, ar·ro·gat·ing, ar·ro·gates

1. To take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate: Presidents who have arrogated the power of Congress to declare war. See Synonyms at appropriate.
2. To ascribe on behalf of another in an unwarranted manner

From Newsweek:

"The more than 10,000 pages, released by the National Archives in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, purport to be the New York senator's daily schedules for her entire eight-year tenure as First Lady—the first major "document dump" from the Clinton Library in Little Rock. But the documents include only Hillary Clinton's public schedules, not her private calendar. And even those appear to be heavily redacted to exclude almost anything that might be of interest to historians and the inevitable posse of "oppo" researchers...

The schedule is considerably less revealing when it comes to more awkward episodes of the Clinton presidency. Consider the afternoon of March 9, 1995, when Johnny Chung, a businessman and soon-to-be-notorious Democratic Party fund-raiser, made a fateful trip to the White House carrying a campaign check for $50,000. For many critics, Chung later became a symbol of the campaign-finance abuses of the Clinton presidency, a mysterious Chinese businessman who managed to be cleared into the White House on 49 occasions. (He also later pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations and testified that a sizeable chunk of his illegal campaign cash came from a Chinese military-intelligence operative.) Hillary Clinton made a special trip to the Map Room that day so she could have her picture taken with Chung. "We handshake, and then she [Hillary Clinton] said, 'Welcome to the White House, my good friend'," Chung later testified, describing the encounter with Hillary Clinton. Right after that, Chung hand-delivered his $50,000 to Maggie Williams, who was the First Lady's chief of staff at the time and now manages her presidential campaign...

But Hillary Clinton's newly released calendar for that day shows no reference to Johnny Chung at all. There is listed, just as Chung testified, an "official photo" session in the Map Room. But the name of the person Hillary Clinton was having her picture taken with has been deleted on the grounds that it would be "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," according to the Archives' released record. This may seem odd, given that Chung had spoken openly, many times, about his photo op with Hillary. It may seem even odder given that just a few minutes later the First Lady had another photo session—but this time, the documents identify the person whose picture was taken. It was Eileen Collins, the astronaut...

Equally unrevealing are Hillary Clinton's schedules for August 1998—a fateful month, during which Bill Clinton was forced to deal with the audacious attacks by Al Qaeda on two U.S. Embassies in Africa even as the Monica Lewinsky scandal was reaching its climax. (The same month, after Bill Clinton gave testimony in Ken Starr's inquiry and finally confessed his relationship with a former White House intern, the Clintons flew off to a vacation in Martha's Vineyard during which Hillary supposedly chastised him for the Monica Lewinsky affair).

Little of this is evident in the schedules released Wednesday. On the contrary, the newly released documents show no public events at the White House—and no public events at an unspecified private residence on Martha's Vineyard. The HRC schedule for Aug. 17, 1998—the day of Bill's grand-jury testimony at the White House—only shows that the Clintons were scheduled to travel to Martha's Vineyard at an undetermined hour that day.

The sad, lifelong impulse of Clinton to elude and hide--as perceptively characterized in Carl Bernstein's balanced, well-researched and first-rate biography of Clinton, is evident here, as it has been in the past.

The actual facts are sanitized to fit--or at least not to contradict--the later arguments--that Clinton was intimately involved in policy decisions, that she, like Obama, is an agent of reform and change. The ironies of such redactions as compared to her early, enthusiastic work on the Watergate committee are painful in their recognition of what her "experience" has led her to now regard as necessary in a political campaign.

She could embrace what she regards as positive in her past and in her husband's administration openly, and equally openly reject what has been negative--those actions that she disagrees with, and how she would act differently in her own Presidency.

Instead, with the heavy mark of a black pen, she hides the past, asking us to then believe in its fragmentary reconstruction.

Such a pattern will likely be prospective in its framing of future events--drawing a black line through those outcomes and events that her Administration fears will be regarded with disfavor.

We have seen this before, in the prior Administration. She should bring her considerable talents and skills to a stance of greater openness and honesty regarding the actions that she has taken and will take. This will provide a solid foundation for what she actually believes in, rather than the hidden fissures that can cause a frantic and self-defeating fall.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

The Speech

The speech that Obama will give today on race will likely be the most crucial one of his political career. Up until the questions raised about Wright, Obama had instilled a powerful and resilient enthusiasm in the American electorate, standing fast against virtually every line of attack from the Clinton camp. It was only the vivid clips of Wright's impassioned statements from the pulpit, and a line of questions that have arisen in association with those remarks, that has caused some of those who had been most supportive of Obama campaign some pause and reconsideration.

The questions are of two types. The group of explicit questions are now well-known. Given Obama's 20 year membership at the church, does he endorse the views of Wright? If not, why did he remain a member, or did he not raise objections to Wright's more inflammatory positions before this date?

The implicit and unspoken questions are themselves more inflammatory, and uncover more deep-seated discomforts and fissures that many Americans still experience regarding race. Those who have embraced a new message of change are vulnerable to triggers of fear and doubt. The most primitive triggers, as we have seen throughout history, move electorates most effectively, despite the intellectual justifications that may ride along the top of such reactions.

Those who hear the Wright clips have a chain of unspoken associations that can be described as follows: Obama brought a message of change and hope to American politics that was embodied by his calm, measured and honest judgment, juxtaposed with the distortions of the previous Administration. Obama offered not only a new view of American politics, but a new paradigm of race--of post-racial politics--as a part of this message of change.

Wright now evokes the inchoate fears associated with the old political paradigm--of incendiary conflict rather than unity. In this case, in an odd and uncanny echo of the self-restricting responses that occurred in the run up to the Iraq war, many now hear in Wright's statements a warning that support of Obama may lead them to be viewed as unpatriotic; deeper still is the unspoken fear that Obama may be like the "old" rather than the "new"--with all of the unstated uneasiness that Obama supporters have celebrated the divestment of as a part of his message of transformation and change.

These underlying emotional doubts, precisely because they are impulsive rather than fully considered, can have considerable power--unless they are themselves calmly, clearly, and fully addressed at both the explicit and implicit levels.

One, of course, may attend a house of worship of any denomination, often for a lifetime, in which they do not fully embrace all of the enthusiasms of the Pastor, Reverend, or other religious leader of the church. Such intense enthusiasms are often issued from the pulpit among many denominations--think of your own house of worship, for example--and are often viewed by the congregation as the specific preoccupations of the Pastor, products of differing generations of life experience, those of one who has been fully immersed in the work, issues and expressions of that time.

Congregants do not typically attend a chruch simply because of a specific attachment to these particular preoccupations of the Pastor--they seek the spiritual and communal fellowship of others, and recognize the difference between generations in the experience of spirituality, struggle, and life, much as many congregants do in making distinctions between the positions of church elders, often steeped in an earlier set of issues, and their own spiritual positions, values and needs. A house of worship is a community, and as in any community, members vary and understand that they vary by differing life experiences, and recognize that these generational variations do not reflect the core issues of theological belief shared by congregants.

You can probably see this in your own religious community--or, indeed, in any community of belief. The hard core adherents. The old fighters. The blind followers. Those who come for largely social reasons. We understand such variance in a community, and yet often continue to attend because it *is* a community that represents the variants of time and humanity, yet brings us together because of, and to discuss, a set of shared beliefs and commitments.

To succeed in his speech today, Obama will need to make clear those principles of shared belief. He will have to help those who are new to understanding the generational struggles of those who fought for spirit in the face of intense racial hatred, how the product of such struggle differs from those who have emerged today, from different experiences--that, just as the spirituality of the Protestants who arrived in fervid protest on our shores to escape religious tyranny differs in rhetoric and form from that of today's Protestants, all forms of belief are reflective of such struggles and change.

He will need to do so in the manner that has brought so many in enthusiasm to his campaign--and that both signifies and heralds such change--with the unifying clarity and honesty that will allow him to describe this spiritual world, etched and co-existing, like all such worlds, like the rings of a tree, with a history of struggle, growth and change--and his place within it.

With such a presentation, that his own views should differ from those of Wright should not be surprising to any member of a thinking community.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Hillary and Elton John

WP's The Sleuth reports that Elton John is playing a benefit concert for the Clinton campaign in New York on April 9th.

Citing Mr. John's previous statements in his prior endorsements, the Sleuth wonders "what he'll call Hillary" this time.

Perhaps he'll sing:


"And it seems to me

You run your campaign

Like a candle in the wind...

Never knowing what persona

We will find you in;


And when the phone rings out at 3

Which one will answer it?

Your candle flickers long before

We'll find the one that did."


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Internet Voting In MI and FL

A truly terrible idea.

Given that this will be a first-time endeavor, and given the complexities of votes jumping as packets, however securely protected, from server to server, the likelihood that someone, somewhere will be able to raise at least a plausible basis for tampering is great. The result will thus no doubt be contested by one side or other, or at least viewed with skepticism by a part of public. This will further divide the Party, providing a feast for the Republicans.

Don't do it.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary Clinton indicated the next clever move of the Clinton camp--making a turn from attack on Obama by insinuation and surrogates, to a serious and detailed speech on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely against Bush and McCain. Having drawn Obama out to respond to the attacks, the plan is clearly to now outflank, moving forward on the issue of Iraq, thus leaving Obama standing amid the mire of the attacks while also attempting to underscore the foreign policy "experience" argument and to turn the narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of soldiers "who have made the ultimate sacrifice" and who have "experienced wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds and their hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to keep as many troops after the surge as before...is a clear admission that the surge has not accomplished its goals. Meanwhile, as we continue to police Iraq's civil war, the to our national security, our economy, and our standing in the world continue to mount." She then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to her core domestic issues--health care for the uninsured, pre-K for children, solving the housing crisis, providing support for college students, and offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of Bush to that of McCain, and citing chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she invoked the "unescapable reality"--we can have troops on the ground for 100 years--but there is no political solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "Withdrawal is not defeat--defeat is keeping troops in iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is losing our reseources and diverting attention from our key interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level strong attacks against Clinton in response to the onslaught of the previous weeks, Clinton is now premptively changing the message and focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq, and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter is certain to draw media attention, and is intended tactically to leave Obama standing in the echo of his return attacks, in the potential position of being a step behind, with the questions of Clinton, however legitimate, unanswered. After having leveled the most broad-brush attacks against Obama, the Clinton camp is now attempting to place Obama in the perceived position of leveling attacks, rather than dealing, as they now happen to be, "with the serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn. Instead, come strong--having first *tied* Clinton's speech to the questions that will now be raised about her, e.g.

Hillary Clinton, has raised questions about fitness for office--at the same time that, as the person running second in this contest, she has said that I would make an excellent Vice President. She has questioned my experience, when she has less experience governing, and key figures from her husband's Administration who were with her at the time have that that experience did not occur. We know the other charges that have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having questions raised about herself, serious questions about her own fitness for governance, about her own "experience", about her own--let's say politely veracity, in statements that she has made and is making, now--she would like to change the discussion. Now--she would like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I know...this is just her newest change, the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just have to wonder. Where was she when we were focusing on the serious issues? Where was she focusing he concerns when Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where has she been when we have been focusing week after week on the serious issues of resolving the war in Iraq, on providing security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next week? Do we want a President who does not know what she will say from week to week? Who does not know who she will be at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the turn, and playing catch-up, let her make her turn--and then box her within it, by tying it to and framing it within the context of her previous changes and actions.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Kosi Fan Tutte: Unity and Division

Thus do they all.

There is a time in the life of a new movement when limbic outrage combines with the glimpsed promise of a new and expanded platform. The initial rush from nonentity to prominence has carried them forward together, but standing on that platform, however low or small, the view creates a burgeoning space in the self--a place of surprised importance--first that their voice is heard, then a question of deserving such a place, which becomes affirmed with each passing day that they hold their new small staff--a place where the narcissism of small differences can take over. "Can I?" The internal voice asks. So close to the emotions of the initial rush of emotions, which were felt together, this new rush of emotion must be right. If they can...if they did...if we did...so can I!

Thus do half-formed, ill-considered second revolutions often take place. The first wave was too heady to consider the splinters of emotion, ambition, pride, and how these might combine with actual ideological difference. The move forward was collective, as was the new degree of influence--but the experience of power, however slight, was individual, and could be triggered into the disparate directions seen all too often in the impulsive spatters across time that we, if noticed, call history.

The impulse--anger, wounded narcissism--comes first, quickly followed by a now slightly practiced, or at least slightly observed, ambitious idea. It is then that words and concepts are appropriated, to provide apparent substance and heft to the initial reaction--"strike" or "abuse"; "freedom" or "censorship"; or, in other similar cases, "patriotism" and "nationalism". Thresholds are set and described after the reaction--a post hoc "it was too much" "we have had enough." Such justifications provide a new form of heady reaction--perhaps the impulse, raw and initially unmitigated, now propped up by the buttresses that follow, not only feels good...but is right!

In such ways does unity often fall apart. The smaller purposes--which we must, we must put forward upon principle, rarely consider the larger principles to which they, often moments before, were firmly committed. It creates the seemingly paradoxical but historically common situation in which a small excitement is able to fully cover a larger objective to create a blind spot, a canyon into which the blinded march with excitement, until the excitement passes, and they survey the terrain around them. We have seen this in 1917, in 1946, in 2002--three examples among countless manifestations across time. Such splinterings typically lead the electorate to search for solid ground in the midst of seeming chaos under "strong", "solid", "traditional" leadership.

Many of those who would today march into the canyon are those who decried Ralph Nader's 2000 stand--who saw the narcissism within the "principled stand", and the larger consequences that such blindness could create.

We have lived under 7 years of an Administration that can be plausibly credited to the excited, impulsive acts, narrowly bounded by limited justifications beyond which was a willed sea of darkness, of that time.

Now, in the acts of a group still fresh with the sense of a new and unexpected influence, we see this phenomenon again: moving impulsively into action, without providing even a full consideration of what it is that they call their act (a "strike" like those taken by workers who give up their jobs and pay?); without providing the evidence upon which they base their claim (to demonstrate the "abuse" would only be to repeat it--or to demonstrate their similar use of language against those that they found unsuitable or unworthy); and without--or perhaps, excitedly, with--a consideration of the consequences.

We see much of the media drawn towards similarly small differences. One such example, as cited in today's LA Times:

CBS CEO Les Moonves "is cheered by the fact that the Democratic race is continuing and that John McCain is raising lots of money to combat the eventual Democratic nominee. 'That's music to our ears,' Moonves said. 'We want this to be as long and as dirty as humanly possible.'"

However, online leaders, at the very least, are subject to considerably fewer constraints, such as shareholders and ratings, than major media, and have considerably greater latitude to shape and drive a new dialogue towards substantive change.

With self-importance comes actual importance. With excited, elevated action comes consideration of and responsibility for the actions.

We should all be proud of the force that we, collectively, have brought to bear on an electorate that, only a decade before, was far less informed on issues of political and personal consequence. The ease with which our voices can reach into the world can create a more powerful unity of purpose towards overarching goals that we share--or a greater and more rapid ability to splinter amongst our smaller differences.

Take a deep breath. Recognize and appreciate the importance and impact of your role--with the human responsibility that your impact now has, and without the tendency towards defense and excitement that exists in all of us. Consider your stand. Ask what you really want for yourselves and for others in the next four or eight years.

A quickly and tenuously built stand can provide a temporary, if illusory, exhilaration. However, a considered and firmly built platform provides a view that lasts for years, can see over and past the canyons--and beyond for many miles.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Re: How Obama Can Win and Win Strong, March 8

Obama tonight in Jackson, MS, via CBS News:

“When in the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you’re behind,” he said, “and your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I’m traveling overseas wearing the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid, and then you run an ad talking about who’s going to answer the phone at three in the morning, an ad straight out of the Republican playbook, that’s not real change.”

He named it as "kitchen sink" politics, anchored it to Republican tactics--and it contrasted with a vision of change for the nation's future.

See it on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/08/BB

You can read the original post delineating this approach, "How Obama Can Win and Win Strong", from March 8, here.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Client 9

Or, as is likely to be said in the coming media Schadenfreude, Emperor's Club R. I. P.

The question will be asked repeatedly: How could someone of such seeming moral rectitude, who seemed not only to base his career on such rectitude but to be driven to it, commit such an act?

In such a question, people make a simple but understandable error--they look at the fact that someone has embraced the mantle of morality--rather than the reasons for it.

There are many reasons why people adopt a particularly moral stance. For some, morality is method of controlling an otherwise fearful world, allowing one to keep a sense of predictability and control over what would otherwise be a rush of panic in the face of life's unpredictability and chaos. For others, morality serves a kind of tribal purpose, a tie to family and origins, maintaining a sense of stability and permanence through clansmanship. For others, it is a weapon of sheer opportunism, a way, among the human weapons seen across millenia, to evince power and dominion over others.

None of these are, of course, mutually exclusive, and people will often display several of these forms and bases for morality.

For Spitzer, however, morality appears to have had a particular been powerfully yoked to twin and inextricably tied purposes: competition and ambition.

Driven from an early age, morality seems to have been inextricably yoked to Spritzers remarkable drive to indicate that he was stronger, better than his competitors. Spitzer went after morality with a relish--and a tendency, which he struggled to fight down over the years, to rub victories in the face of those he had vanquished --that suggests a drive to morality as a form of competitive victory and evidence of personal superiority--the relish of a perfect score against those who would do lesser--of winning.

This is not to say that Spitzer did not see his targets as morally wrong--indeed, their moral flaws provided the spark and impetus for battle-- nor that he did not wish to correct moral wrongs. However, it is to say that the most powerful and persistent motivation driving this each day, was Spizter's drive to compete, to emerge perfectly victorious over those who were thus proven as lesser, and the division of people into rather simplistic and binary forms of good and evil to serve the sense ones own victorious perfection.

Such a moral stance--of victory and defeat, of good (Spitzer) and bad (his vanquished enemies)-- can lead to a particular (and likely rapid) form of inner moral accounting and comparison: One can feel that they are so far "ahead" in moral victories as compared to the vastly less moral and vanquished others, that they are allowed a structured, narrow, and quiet deviation. After all--they are still far ahead in the moral contest, with so many victories, as compared to those that they have turned out as far less moral. Given such a margin, one can be allowed a flaw--and still be winning. It is no wonder that many of Spitzer's enemies viewed him as, at times, embracing a double standard.

Regardless of how one may view such a standard, it is different than a morality that views moral failure as human flaw; where one recognizes that there are not good people who win (Spitzer) and bad people (others) who, in a rush of competitive self-enhancement, must be defeated, but that all people must fight against human flaw. In such a moral scheme, one includes themselves. As a reformer embracing this moral approach, one would work to expose immorality for its social harms, rather than as a route to personal and professional competition and victory--and would also recognize the tendency to such flaw within themselves.

This will burn like a brushfire. Spitzer, despite the desire to fight to the last, will, in the crush of revelations, and in the unending march of human hubris, irony, and folly, likely have to resign.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Notes

Readership has increased by a multiple of thousands in the past few days. Welcome readers from Salon, Washington Post, Buzzflash, Chicago Tribune, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Drive We Said, Facebook, and Obama '08.

Some notes:

-You have asked for subscription options. To the left, you now have the ability to subscribe by Blogger, Yahoo, and Feedburner;

-You can now also email posts using the email icon at the bottom of each post;

-Many have asked to post these messages on other sites. Feel free to do so, as long as you provide a citation/link to the site; you are free to use your energy, intellect and creativity to spread and cite the posts in all ways that you think will help get the message out.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Ready But Not: There She Goes Again

Clinton claims Obama is not ready to be President. However, she extols the idea of his being Vice President--a heartbeat away.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Note: This move was predicted in this very blog, as long ago as February 5, here.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

How Obama Can Win and Win Strong

I am aware of the delegate math.

I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.

However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on a strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (after all, someone has to do it), and at the same time place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: A box where any attack will be immediately associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics; of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: in a moment of crisis, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. In addition, it provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments" (thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain--and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Harvard Looks In The Kitchen Sink

From Harvard's Kennedy School of Government Veritasiness Blog:

Hillary Clinton’s Ad

Mar 5th, 2008 by Tom Fiedler

So, it seems like Hillary survived Mini Super Tuesday.

I’m not sure if what has been tossed inside the Kitchen Sink recently had anything to do with tonight’s outcome, but the sink does seem to show how desparate Hillary was.

Another interesting video to check out: Does Obama look darker to you? Whoever in charge of Hillary’s ads might be smart. But I must say… “Internet bloggers” are no less smart…

-seonjoo

-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Après lui, le déluge

The kitchen sink runneth over.

The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.

As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning--as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve--namely, those who win ugly.

Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.

We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.

The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.

However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting--paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.

We can and should do so.

A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.

Note, as a single example, today's report by the CBC that Canadian Prime Minister Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was indeed the source the leak of supposed quotes regarding NAFTA--and that Clinton's team had also allegedly told Harper to "take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt."

This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear and unproven distortion. In the slowly receding shadow of these past two terms, pursue reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experience", and dark insinuation, tenaciously learn--and vote--the facts.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Inside The Kitchen Sink

From the NYT:

After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a “kitchen sink” fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.

Let's see what has been tossed inside the kitchen sink:

-A vicious email smear campaign falsely portrays Obama as a Muslim. He has been a devout Christian for 20 years. The Clinton camp has the opportunity to firmly decry such tactics, or to sow the seeds of doubt. Clinton on 60 minutes: If he says that he is a Muslim "I'll take him at his word";

- A picture of Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb mysteriously arises and is splashed across the front page of the Drudge Report, designed, like the above, to inflame the most base and simplistic prejudices. Again, the Clinton campaign has the opportunity to refuse to use prejudice and stereotype to political advantage. Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed";

-Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is a Conservative. His Chief of Staff Ian Brodie leaks supposed minutes of statements by an Obama aide. The statement is not by the Obama aide, and the minutes were not taken by the Obama aide, they were taken by a Canadian official. Liberal Canadian parties vehemently protest the attempt by the Conservative Party to influence the U.S. election. The Clinton camp accepts this specious account as valid--and throws it in the kitchen sink as well;

-The Clinton camp, in Drudge-like fashion, insinuates dark misdoings regarding Antoin Rezko--despite the fact that there have been absolutely no allegations of wrongdoing by Obama--hoping perhaps that the mere association will stick--and despite the questions that have been raised about Clinton fundraising during the years of her own "experience";

-The Clinton campaign rolls out the hackneyed "red phone" advertisement, dating to Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign, to suggest that she, unlike Obama, has greater experience for such "3 A.M. moments". When asked to name a single crisis situation that she has actually had to deal with, she is unable to name one.

-Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign's chief strategist, in the weekend panic, emails the L.A. Times to state that he had "'no direct authority in the campaign,' describing himself as merely 'an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me.'"

This sink is filled with the type of fear-based politics that we have come to know so well over these past 8 years. It is fundamentally defensive, and is all-too-willing to use the familiar tools of dishonesty and distortion in pursuit of victory. It indicates how a Clinton Administration would respond to adversity--with a tactical fusillade of presentations, followed by distortion and attack.

It's time to clean the dishes. Don't allow yourself to be misled by misrepresentation, insinuation and division. Leave this kind of politics behind.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

The New Triangulation

From today's Politico:

In a front-page stunner, Clinton campaign message guru Mark Penn e-mails the L.A. Times over the weekend to say that he had "no direct authority in the campaign," describing himself as merely "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me."

"I have had no say or involvement in four key areas — the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas," the e-mail said, as quoted by the paper.

From today's WP:

Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign, asserted today that an ad that raised the specter of a national security crisis and questioned Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) readiness to handle such an event has fundamentally altered the shape of the race heading into tomorrow's votes in Ohio and Texas.

Penn said the ad, which began airing Friday, effectively framed the question of "who's ready and prepared to be commander-in-chief." Penn added: "Just by merely asking the question and nothing more, millions of people understood what is the answer to that question." He called it a "tipping point" in the race that has signaled a "change in momentum."

One's personal war room must always be ready--with both messages, if need be.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Fish on Obama and McCain in Today's NYT

Stanley Fish, in today's NYT, makes the argument that Obama will be "boxed in" by the position that he has taken on Iraq during the nomination process. By taking the position that the U.S. should withdraw, Fish argues, Obama will be inflexibly committed to a stance that will be set against McCain's ability to continue to endorse the surge if it succeeds, while being able to tack towards modifications as the situation changes on the ground.

This presupposes three assumptions:

1) That the current reduction in violence is due to the U.S. military/force multiplication effects of the surge alone--rather than to the belief among Iraqis that the surge is linked to increased participation by Iraqis, and, thereby, to imminent withdrawal of American forces;

2) That the American public wishes to remain in the war, when a majority of Americans have indicated that they favor a withdrawal plan;

3) That a commitment by McCain to the same policies followed by George W. Bush will have a positive "halo" effect, enhancing McCain's popularity, in an electorate that is reacting in ways never seen before against such policies.

The response for Obama is clear: we enhance the process (already begun) of returning Iraq to Iraqi hands, extracting ourselves from a war that we never should have begun. We act in response to the majority of the electorate, which favors withdrawal from a conflict based on specious premises, while actively and aggressively pursuing the war outside of Iraq. And we turn from the poorly sourced, ill-considered, and reactive policies and cronyism of the prior Administration to policies based on reason, strength, and honesty with the American people.

-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Authentic Change

The WP reports today that Obama has "thrown away the script" in Ohio, turning from his stump speech to a series of town hall meetings.

Ohio and Texas are tight. The contest is too close to call. This is, for a campaign, a "red phone" moment.

Note how Obama responds.

Instead of an array of tactical shifts in persona, Obama shows the strength and fortitude that he has demonstrated all along--in a kind of reverse Rove (recall that Rove was famous for taking his adversary's greatest strength and attacking it) taking his greatest ability and putting it to the side, moving from score to improvisation, to further answer the questions of the people--something he has done all along the campaign trial, but now is putting aside his greatest strength to emphasize.

Note what he could have done: He could have gone on the attack, derogating Hillary's past through the ad hominem methods all too recently seen. He could have attempted to change the presentation of his personality, in order to find the persona that consultants recommend, changing his tone, his emotions, shifting through traits like a anxious shuffle through a deck of cards, searching for the combination that would meet the seeming demands of the day. In a moment of pressure--at 3 .A.M.--he could have responded with panic and artifice.

Instead, he moves *away* from his strength, and presents himself simply before the people.

This is judgment, which arises from a known and consistent self. It does not arise, despite experience, from a self that uncertain, fearful, and therefore driven by fear, to change under the pressures of the moment.

This is what will count when genuine moments of crisis occur in our future evenings, in our 3 A.M. moments, and in the early dawn.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Clinton Compares Obama To Bush

From today's WP:

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton told students at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

Obama, of course, is not Bush.

Whereas Bush is intellectually incurious, and views intellect and complexity with fear, masked by a reflexive and reductionistic contempt, Obama is intellectually curious, seeks out and embraces ideas, and is interested in their utility, rather than their conforming to a narrow and predetermined plan, and will bring this intellectual strength and ability to his policies.

Whereas Bush is inflexible to the point of parody--and tragedy--making a virtue of failing to reexamine assumptions even when it is clear they are not working-- because cognitive rigidity is, for him, equated with strength, as opposed to the "weakness" of making distinctions--Obama has both firm convictions and the ability to advance and adapt those beliefs to changing circumstances. He has the ability to adapt on the basis of effectiveness and utility, rather than to react impulsively, to stand stubbornly still without any substantive basis, or to fail to adapt, based on fear.

Whereas Bush begins from a point of defensiveness, viewing much of the world in terms of those who need to be taken down a peg from their know-it-all-stance--the hallmark of a life of earlier resentments, imposed on the world of foreign policy--Obama operates from a position of engagement with people and with ideas. He wants to know; is capable of objective evaluation, and seeks to bring new voices into his dialogue, rather than deflecting them.

Whereas Bush has used advisers as a circle of wagons and a complexity filter, keeping criticism, real-world intricacies, and cognitive dissonance to a minimum, Obama appears to welcome advice, using advisers as a resources rather than as a shield.

And, whereas Bush connects with the resentments of the angry everyday man, who feels unfairly downtrodden by those that, in their intellectual and emotional confidence and passion, remind them of their own flaws and fears, and who resents those who might receive help, when they feel they have received none, is unlike Obama--who connects with the willingness to aspire rather than to the fear of it; to the hope of devoting the best of oneself to a community and nation rather than self-protectively dividing it; and to the desire to replace the primacy of tactics and cronyism in favor of shared principle and truth.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for one's actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office;

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Clinton, Obama, and "Lifted"

From today's WP:

Yesterday, key Clinton supporters accused Obama of "lifting" a passage of the rousing speech he delivered to a party gathering in Milwaukee on Saturday night from Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick, a longtime friend and supporter. Side-by-side YouTube videos distributed to reporters by the Clinton campaign show Obama repeating, almost verbatim, lines from a speech Patrick gave two years earlier.

As you may be aware, Obama's stump speech has a section that states that the phrases "I have a dream" and "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" were also "just words"--powerful words that mobilized a nation. This was similar to a section of a speech by Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts and a close Obama friend and supporter.

"Lifted?"

From the Times:

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.

Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.

Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.

“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”

"Lifted" is a word with powerful psychological resonance. "The pickpocket lifted the wallet from the passenger", say; or " The reporter lifted the phrase from another article."

To use a word such as "lifted" here--where the information was given from one close friend to another, is simply false. Would the Clinton camp say that a candidate "lifted" phrases from a speechwriter who offered words for the campaign?


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman


Words have power. When discussing Obama's, the Clinton campaign should also give equal careful consideration to their own.

The Shift is Beginning

The shift in the storyline is beginning. You can feel it.

As of the Sunday shows, the storyline will begin to be the "Clinton comeback". Journalists will begin to move from the story of Obama momentum to be the among the first to begin to emphasize this new narrative. The issue of the superdelegates, of Michigan and Florida, and of Obama "falling short" will begin to be the lede.

You heard it here first.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Forecasting the Swift Boating and Preparing A Response

A line that you are certain to hear repeatedly, voiced in the hushed, insinuating tone of negative advertising, in the days to come:

"The most liberal voting record in the Senate".

The Obama team has been deft and adept at countering such attacks. They should begin working on a response to this line now, given the visceral guilt/fear response that many still have to the word "liberal".

My suggestion: attach the response to the Bush record while redefining Obama's own stance in the very terms that have led to such enthusiasm, e.g.:

"I'd rather have someone who is actually concerned about providing health care for all who need it, to protecting those who work hard each day to have real job security, to have someone who will look out for you rather than my cousin Dick Cheney's friends in Washington, someone who won't bog our fine troops down in a senseless war in Iraq rather than fighting the real war on terror. We've seen what these guys have done. I'm proud of what I've done, proud of the stands that I've taken on Iraq when others would not. And I am ready to make the changes that we all know, we all have seen, need to be made."

That's a start.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Signaling and Tempting

Hillary's speech tonight was notable in several respects--calm, psychologically adept, delivered to shape viewer perceptions of Clinton as a presumptive winner, and especially interesting in one respect: providing a signal to, and about, Obama.

The speech repeatedly juxtaposed symbolic appeals to the civil rights struggle--which constantly referenced Obama's campaign in the listener's mind--without once mentioning Obama--until the end. At the point, she briefly referenced Obama--and then spoke of continuing "our" campaign, of uniting in "our" work.

In so doing, she deftly, and for the first time effectively, outflanked Obama on the civil rights issue, and then invited--in fact tempted--Obama to join with her in her work. This was clear enough to be a signal to Obama--and to also signal the electorate that she was providing a victor's invitation to Obama--while remaining subtle enough to be changed should contingencies require it.

Psychologically sophisticated and smart. Now let's see what California brings.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Double Malapropism

Jim Acosta on CNN re: Obama:

"He's pretty much been campaigning mano a mano with Ted Kennedy and Carolyn Kennedy..."


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Nota Bene: AP: "Santorum Questions McCain's 'Temperament'"

Santorum questioning one's temperament is like Bill Bennett questioning one's affinity for gambling.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

"Sound Bites On A Plane": A 'Hippocratic Oath' Between Candidates and Journalists?

Jim Rutenberg, in today's "Sound Bites On A Plane" from the NYT Caucus Blog:

On the Clinton plane, the issue arose Saturday when a group of reporters– including Patrick Healy of The New York Times - told her press staff that they no longer felt comfortable allowing Mrs. Clinton to wander back and speak with them on an off-the-record basis.

The issue came up again in the evening, when campaign aides offered to bring Chelsea Clinton back to speak with reporters – an unusual offer of access to the once-cloistered, former first daughter – but only if they agreed not to report about her visit. (After lengthy debate, the wee hours, the Chelsea Clinton interview would not come to be).

And on the Obama plane, it was the candidate himself who tried to wander back for some unscripted, off-the-record schmoozing on Saturday.

As reported in this dispatch from the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama walked back to say “hello” to one of the elder statesmen of the political press corps, Dan Balz of The Washington Post. When the inevitable scrum gathered around the two, the assembled reporters – including Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times — overcame Mr. Obama’s protestations that he had not come back with the intention of being quoted.

No one can begrudge candidates their attempts to gain advantage, by "flying under the radar" to nudge, flatter, and otherwise influence journalists in this way, particularly when, as California tightens and Tuesday nears, every softened barb, each slightly kinder adjective may count. And one could understand the desire of a reporter to gain professional advantage, or at least a moment of personal favor, by quoting an off-the-record contact--or by demanding an on-the-record one.

A reverse commitment of the doctor's pledge to confidentiality also exists here--the fundamental job of a a reporter is exactly that--to report. Candidates should not be able to tactically define the reality of what is "reportable" any more than journalists should selectively report that reality based upon the seductions professional or personal advantage.

Although the motives of journalist demands for on-the-record access many not always be so noble--pure on-the-record access makes a slip, a novel lede, and, ultimately, a met deadline more likely, one can also understand that reporters would not want to be massaged and manipulated in this manner, allowing candidates to have it both ways. The doctor-patient relationship requires confidentiality and trust--a compact, inherent in the commitment to "do no harm", that what is said between them will go unreported. In the candidate-journalist relationship, the candidate cannot expect to be able to attempt to prod, shape and create the news--without the journalist naming its source.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Liveblogging Hillary : Sunday's Interview on "This Week"

Exhausted. On the brink of tears. No doubt the national polls, the California numbers, and the sheer grind take their inevitable toll. The heart of it, however, is frustration, breaking through at what she regards as misstatements.

The anger when she says "...misstates what I have said." Now having to face George under these circumstances. Looks almost punch drunk from exhaustion.

When she says "I'm always a little amused" the tears almost break through. Angry frustration. "I really hope that Senator Obama will stop deliberately misstating what I said". She's furious about this.

George then rolls the "will you garnish their wages" Obama clip from the health care section of the Kodak debate.

She's a bit more confident here, rolls more easily, feels that this position has been less distorted than others, knows her position, hits her mark more surely, although still obviously covering rage. Some of the tightest smiles I have seen.

This really raises the question of how can a woman show anger as a political candidate. The simple answer: just show it. But we know how this will be regarded. How much of this is gender stereotyping--be genuine, but don't be genuine if it abrades our role expectations--and how much a reflection of her own limitations--her battle between expression of belief and tactical adjustment?

It surely raises the question of how to express anger for her in this interview. You can see that she is frustrated, angry, barely controlled, between feeling that it is fully justified to be outraged, to blast what she regards as Obama's mischaracterizations, and knowing--believing- that she has to appear unconcerned, unperturbed, smiling in the face of anger, well aware of what would follow from a genuine outburst of rage.

This struggle--the manifest fact of what, for her, are Obama's mischaracterizations, and the manifest inability to fully address it as she would like--is palpable.

She really looks ready to scream and storm out of the room. I have seen this before.

The exhaustion and frustration are underneath throughout the interview--she looks ready to throw up her hands in frustration and exhaustion.

Illegal immigration. Her voice is almost ready to crack. "It's not a fair statement". This is the message of this interview--her rage and frustration at the mischaracterizations.

Why would she be outraged? This is someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics--Arkansan politics, White House battles, the most extreme and delusional attacks from the far right. Again, knocked off of her typical stance of the reformer, and then being mischaracterized by what she must regard as the pretender to this position must seem to be a particularly frustrating dilemma.

The genuine smile and relief on the Ann Coulter support question. After this, she finds energy and strength for the closing statement--some genuine amusement mixed in with the obvious rage and pain.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Authenticity Betrayed

Notice the look in Clinton's eyes during the Kodak Theatre debate as she listens to Obama challenge her on the Use of Force resolution.

Watch carefully.

Note how hard she is working hard to suppress admiration. First, there is the moment of clear recognition of his facility at jousting, fighting, parrying--the momentary shocked surprise, followed by professional appreciation, a moment of enjoyment, and quick upon this, the icy millisecond of fear--after which, you can see her work--responsibly, this must be covered--to put her serious, skeptical, no-nonsense pose back in place.

She is enjoying him--a genuine response--and she has to fight to repress it.

It's a kind of tragic irony: It is that Hillary--the one that flickers and submerges in that moment, behind the one that has now been twisted into place to frantically wave and bellow through Super Tuesday--who offers the genuineness of spirit, comfort in her own skin, and basis for generating an authentic spirit of change that is now offered by Obama, and that the electorate is responding to.

It is possible to be both genuine and tactical. What this requires is the courage of one's convictions and the stable and consistent belief in self and one's purpose--that one knows who they are and what they believe, providing the foundation for action. Tactics can issue from this--as they do from Obama--but they are mobilized in the service of this firm belief and from this knowledge of self.

Self, itself, cannot be tactical.

Now, this reminds me of many things--of a woman who, inevitably, as we saw in Bernstein's excellent "A Woman in Charge", must ultimately be drawn to the combatant; of someone who constantly seeks to be free of the armor of self even as she, once again, somewhat wearily places it on; of a father who always had a stronger answer, who she could never quite please, and enjoyment and attachment that a child develops to such experiences, even as they seek, often for the rest of their lives to both satisfy and overcome it.

But you are not a Georgetown doctor and you may want something less clinical. So let's propose the following:

In such moments, she betrays the ironic truth--the proud speaker of Wellesley, still very much present beneath the armor, would likely be a follower of Obama--if events in New Haven had turned out slightly differently.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Michelle: The Secret Weapon

If you have not heard a speech by Michelle Obama, you should make it your next priority.

Utterly inspired. Genuine. Psychologically adept. Tough. Brilliant. Tenacious. I have never heard a speaker like her in my life. This woman can move elderly audiences in an Iowa meeting hall and urban audiences in a Chicago ballroom. She truly creates hope--more effectively than her husband actually, as she brings a pragmatic toughness, an understanding of delivering the truth of each moment to the listener that Barack's slightly more gauzy presentation lacks.

She accomplishes something very rare--she speaks tactically, but from a position of genuineness and truth. That is, she knows what she believes--there is no doubt--and uses every method of empathy to ensure that the listener fully understands the weight and import of what she has to say.

She knows she has something to say--and she is absolutely determined to ensure that it is heard. However, rather than reaching for a fearful imposture, a bellowing meant to sound inspirational, she thinks from moment to moment about the mind of the listener, and what would be most likely to leave this message within them.

She is adept, powerful, and accurate at this--her listeners feel the truth of her message as they identify with her effort to deliver truth, to cut through the various poses of the political game, and they are electrified by it.


If you look in her eyes, you don't see the slight self-congratulation that one sees in Bill Clinton's empathy, the self-regard at his own skill at the empathic touch; you don't see the fearful, confused reach for inspiration, covered over with a pose of strength, of her wife. You see determination--a recognition that a message needs to be delivered, and that she will work as hard as she can to ensure that it is heard and understood. It is sincere, genuine, eloquent, powerful, and, from what I have seen so far, the best of the season.


-Dr. Alan J. Lipman

Running Scared

Back after a long break working on the book. I've cleared out from the thicket of past posts all but the most relevant, concise or amusing to me.

In any event:

Fear is playing a role in this year Democratic contest--but not the role that it has played in the recent past.

Clinton has constructed her career as an accommodation between her genuine reformist impulses, and a gradual wearing away of these that is comprised of both the wisdom of experience, and political calculation. Thus far, she has managed to do so while still presenting herself as a reformer, with the main concern being moderating the (largely inaccurate) perception of her as a "radical" by the swift-boating far right.

Given this, I think that Clinton never anticipated a candidate who would grasp the mantle of reform more surely than she would.

As a result, she has no real way to construct a solid position--embrace experience, and you lose the power than change holds this season. Embrace change, and you appear to be an imitator. Do both, and it appears to be a clever attempt to have both--too clearly tactical. This results in the screaming, bellowing attempts to create motivation in her current speeches. Screaming is not inspiration.

The "Dirty Little Secret" of this part of the campaign is fear--not the well known issue of motivating the electorate by fear, but of fear motivating the potentially elected.

The Swift Boats are Warming Their Engines In The Harbor...

Mary Matalin is using her talents as a flexible adept this morning to strenuously argue that its good for Hillary if she loses in Iowa.

The numbers from the Register must be in.

"She gets knocked down, she gets back up!" says Matalin.

They must be terrified of Obama, as those figures arise out of the mist into clarity as well.

Charisma, change--and any attack on those issuing from Obama--just reinforces Republican negatives. It's a line that will be impossible to navigate with the usual tactics.

The Bill Richardson Drinking Game

The Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson Drinking Game

Attention:

I have invented a new drinking game.

It is called the Bill Richardson Drinking Game.

Use it fast, before you lose the chance (or until it becomes the Vice-Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson drinking game, although this seems increasingly unlikely).

REQUIREMENTS:

-A watch with a second hand

-Alcohol

-Bill Richardson (televised, YouTubed, etc.)

Any format in which Bill Richardson is speaking provides the opportunity to play the game--interview, debate, casually observed street conversation (observe all traffic laws).

THE GAME:

ROUND 1: OPENING TIMING ROUND

If he mentions an item from his resume within 10 seconds, take 3 shots.

If he mentions an item from his resume within 30 second, take 2 shots

If he mentions an item from his resume within 1 minute, take 1 shot


ROUND 2: APPROACHING THE GREEN

-If he uses the phrase "I'm the only one who..." take 1 shot. ("I'm the one who" also qualifies)

-If uses the phrase "I was U.S. Ambassador" (or otherwise mentions this position in reference to himself) take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrases "I know the area", "I know the region", "I know the players" or "I was there", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "proven record", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "I have actually done it", take 1 shot.


ROUND 3: GAME PROPER:

-If he uses the phrase "as a special envoy", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "as a diplomat", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "executive experience", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "foreign policy experience", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "as a Congressman", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "as a Governor", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "as a CEO", take 1 shot.

-If he uses the phrase "rescuing hostages" take 1 shot.

COMBINATION POINTS: Any phrase from the Approaching the Green can be combined with a phrase from Game Proper in any order and variation:

Examples: "As a special envoy, I have actually done it"= 2 shots; or "As a diplomat, I'm the only one who has foreign policy experience" = 3 shots).

Do not drive or operate heavy machinery after playing the Bill Richardson drinking game. Always drink wisely.

Wishful Projection, Part 1

From CNN International, May 11:


Tip of the hat to TVNewser at Mediabistro.com.