Returning to the pizza restaurant theme others have posted: here’s my take…

Hillary’s Pizza Joint:
A family business that can always be relied on to use the same recipes — so you can be assured that you’ll get the same taste no matter when you stop by. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your opinion of that recipe.

Obama’s Pizza Joint:
Wow — the person who wrote the copy for that menu did a great job, and when the owner comes to your table and recites the menu, he does it beautifully. But what does it really mean when he says, “You’re the one who can make it happen — you’ll go out into the kitchen, make the pizza, and if it doesn’t taste good, it’s your fault because in my kitchen everything happens from the bottom up, not the top down. I’m just the guy who recites the menu.” But at least a free side of Hope comes with every pizza.

John’s Pizza Joint:
He advertises exactly what he’s going to put on your pizza and it sounds great — just like what you’ve been craving for years. But it may be too hot for certain people to handle, so there’s a warning on the menu that some may not be allowed to sit down at the table. Oh, and if you show up without any money, don’t fret. John will feed you for free and let you sleep in the back room. And he’ll sit back there listening to your concerns about his pizza so he can adjust the recipe as needed.

Original quote: One of the reasons Obama won in Iowa is that the articulated a clear vision of the America that he was working for.

Could you tell me about it, in a nutshell?

Haven’t you heard? “Hope, change, and bipartisanship.” You know, Bill Clinton in a post-9/11 world. Lovely thought, huh.

I hate saying this but I will vote for HRC if it came between her and Obama for only one reason: she’s hated. Basically, HRC as a lightning rod for the right coupled with our anger at the right could potentially be a benefit to the progressive movement. Two possibilities:
1. (Most likely) When she sells us out, unlike Obama, the perfect Trojan horse, who is loved and believed by many to be some “progressive” instead of the corporate centrist he is, she won’t get away with it from the generic left; and
2. (This one I’m a little less clear on, so forgive me) Confrontation increases voter turnout so when she inevitably gets attacked by the right and she holds her own against them, rightly casting the GOP as the villain (There’s a far higher chance of her doing it than Obama), it’ll rouse up angry votes and activism from the left, which I believe is much angrier than the right, who want to finally unleash all this frustration we have against not only the GOP but the general state of affairs in our country.

You need anger. Did you not notice that your country is a disgrace? You’ve been sliding into fascism. You think you can cuddle up to that?

You are so right about the delivery. I’ve heard other people who agree with Edwards on the issues say that they wished he was more inclusive. Some of them felt like he was saying it was “us against them” and did you have to agree with everything he said to be in the “us” column? That framing requires a listener to determine whether they are the “us” or the “them.” What you really want to do is to make it so that the listener feels that they are a part of “we” and are called to take action collectively with others. A better framing would be “we are in this together” and here’s how we can effect change.

I’ve thought about this often. His message and his delivery are discordant. I don’t understand why this wasn’t discovered and corrected earlier in the campaign though. It’s like hearing Beethoven being played on a slightly out of tune piano.

Perhaps the problem is that he’s still the lawyer in the courtroom wherein you have to make the jury angry enough at the other side to return a judgement against them.

Unfortunately, his framing of “us versus them” just doesn’t play well in 2008. Especially after all the divisive politics of Karl Rove and the Bush II years. I do think the electorate wants someone who will be more positive.

Edwards is right on the issues but his framing is wrong for 2008.

are we nuts to reject this beautiful family that has modeled a response to twin tragedies?

I believe everyone who didn’t endorse Edwards will rue their decision, and that goes double for the disloyal Ned Lamont.

Edwards has ideas. HRC and Obama have platitudes. I know which approach I prefer.

ditto

You write, “If we can’t bring along Independents and some Republicans into a governing coalition, NOTHING will get done. Strong lefties may not like it, but you have to at least appear to listen to the other sides’ concerns or they won’t support you. Once you have gained their ear, THEN you can convince them on the details. You have to have political capital in order to use it.”

If we have a working majority things CAN get done.

Lefties can listen, we’re good at governing.

Is “appearing to listen” all Barack really intends?

Can you really really convince them on the details? Haven’t the last several decades already refuted that argument?

One of the reasons Obama won in Iowa is that the articulated a clear vision of the America that he was working for.

Could you tell me about it, in a nutshell?

I ask because I haven’t got it yet.