The Way I See Things

This post is really meant for Senator Obama's campaign staff, and this is the only direct mechanism I know for contacting them...
(And I will have a bit more to say about the debate later.)

However, for now...
PinMart.com is selling Flag Pins (B1G1; BoGo; Buy 1 Get 1; however you'd like to describe it) for $3.95 + $3.85 S/H on any size order.

TOTAL
$7.80...
2 pins...
Delivered.

* And the price per pin drops in quantity (only $2.99 for 7 to 11 pins).

I completely support the statement Senator Obama is trying to make by not wearing a flag pin (Summary of why Senator Obama Chooses Not to Wear Flag Pin As Statement of True Patriotism/Iraq War Statement); however...

A flag pin is not worth the loss of a single vote.

I will say it again:
A...
Flag...
Pin...
IS NOT...
Worth...
The Loss...
Of...
A...
SINGLE...
VOTE.

For the staff, I also recommend someone get online and reserve...
flagpinwatch
.com;
.net &;
.org.

I checked before I posted this entry and those domain names were still available.

Then you can post pictures of Senator Obama wearing his flag pins. You can take pictures of him wearing the pins that active duty personnel, veterans and others gave to him to wear. And...
You can keep track of every, single, day he wears a flag pin from now...
Until his last day in office...
January 20th...
2017.

This simple act will net the campaign more positive publicity--more pervasive, far-reaching publicity--and remove this as an issue of controversy far more persuasively than a month of speeches.

(And, while you're at it, you might consider snatching up...
notamuslim
.com;
.net &;
.org.)

POINT #1:
In contrast to previous debates, there are some technical issues Senator Obama needs to address. Now, ABC has already committed to more aggressive moderating and Senator Obama needs to make sure they follow through. Senator Clinton has previously attempted to monopolize the discussion of issues.

This behavior has to be halted.

If she starts to undermine the proceedings, Senator Obama needs to intervene and explain...
The debate is NOT a Clinton Campaign Commercial.

Voters/viewers think many of the issues are equally important. Health care is important if an economy exists where people can feed themselves and their families. The economy is important if people feel secure about their jobs; their homes; and a sense of fairness in who is taxed--who contributes to the operation of their government--and how.. National security is important if people feel like they have a government that values their priorities and concerns.

POINT #2:
The issue of Credibility is paramount in this dialogue...
There's a clear and qualitative distinction between making a mistake and/or poorly chosen words versus...
Fabricating a falsehood into a truth.

The point here would be to allude to Bosnia but--Really, Actually--the focus would be on...
The characterization of Senator Obama as an elitist.
Yes.
Bait and switch.
Regardless, whichever she assumes, she will have to address one, if not both, issues.

And in this component of character there is a clear contrast between himself, and Senators Clinton and McCain and President Bush.

Senator Obama has been forthcoming and earnest about not only his own mistakes but those of his staff, surrogates and personal allies/friends that are not involved in campaign policy/decision making. He has not lied about Senator Clinton. He has not tried to portray her inaccurately. Accuracy actually serves to better highlight their differences--and he could even say her deficiencies (even though he's probably too diplomatic to do so)--well enough that he has no need to resort to...
The underhanded tactics she's chosen.

And to clarify, those tactics are--at least--framing Senator McCain as more qualified than another Democrat, and trying to define Senator Obama as an elitist.

POINT #3:
When he speaks about his San Francisco/Pennsylvania comments, he should--once again--apologize for the mistake in choice of words, then...
He should make his central theme very clear...
That...
Without hope...
Without change...
Without feeling like what they do contributes to a better America for all...
People who don't feel disenfranchised...
Choose either...
1) Apathy, disinterest and non-participation...
OR...
2) Cast their votes in support of things that are familiar to them.

Things such as:
* Who best represents the tenets of their religion...
* Who sounds/looks most like I do...
* Who protects their jobs from illegal immigrants...
* Who protects their tangible rights, like their right to keep their gun...

Because, if that candidate wins, they will feel they accomplished something...
Despite...
* The investment in corporate interests/special interests/lobbyists they feel control Congress...
* The escalating corporate profits concomitant with the increase in food prices & gas prices, and the sacrifices those entail in how people feed their families, the activities available to them...
* The loss of home values while the government invests tens of billions to rescue financial institutions in which they have no investment...
* The loss of jobs across all sectors...
* The horrendous debt that college entails, while those financing that debt bask in, once again, record profits...
* The consent of those that have been serving in Congress, who've done nothing with their power except enable these conditions...

Because...
* They have no hope that they can change those things...
* They have no hope that anyone in any branch of government cares about changing those things.

Senator Obama's campaign is solely about everyone working together to...
Create Hope And Change.

And, once again, I reiterate that Senator Obama should explain that while he was interpreting the words, feelings, substance of what he heard in Pennsylvania--and also how he thinks HE would feel if he were in their position (he should Emphasize His Empathy); he should also apologize for not asking Those Pennsylvanians how they would like to be described.

POINT #4
Senator Obama can make a strong and bold case that he isn't running as an opportunity to, possibly, amass...
Another...
$100+ million after his time in office.
He can make a strong and bold case that the only elitism he practices...
That which is incontrovertibly distinct from his opponents...
Is that which betters all of America.
Not just the Americans he knows.

POINT #5:
Senator Obama also needs to reinforce that he is a parent. A parent of young children. Not children who can fight and fend for themselves. That he has the concerns of a parent. About what type of economic, environmental and global citizenship/national security landscape awaits them. As a parent he thinks about the little girls whose parents are fighting, all over the world, for the security of our nation. And is that a noble and honorable endeavor. You can call him elitist all you'd like but he's thinking about the daughters that, like his own, did not grow up in mansions--governor's mansions or the White Houses or otherwise--and how to make their lives better.

POINT #6:
Senator Clinton stated that she was concerned about the Democratic Party but she's already proven she has no compunctions about eviscerating it, in allying herself with Republican Party interests (and even now with Senator Obama's San Francisco comments, she and Senator McCain sound eerily similar), to win the nomination.


MINOR CONCERNS:
* He can address the 'Duck Blind' and 'Annie Oakley' comments and state they were not connected. My interpretation was Senator Obama was referring to hunting in the former; and Senator Clinton as a 2nd Amendment affirming, gun carrying proponent in the latter. This is logical and sensible which, as he's proven, fits Senator Obama's character.

HUMOR
* I wish one of the moderators would come out with a penny, flip it into the air, and invite Senator Clinton to shoot it out of the air.
* Senator Obama could also tell Senator Clinton he feels safer sitting next to her, given her marksmanship skills, but hopes she hasn't had to many to drink before coming to the debate.
* Senator Obama could give Senator Clinton a gift prior to the debate: A bottle of Crown Royal.

That's my 'Armchair Strategist's' view.

And make no mistake...
It was a mistake.

People can rant and rail that his statements were taken out of context. And, indeed, I read the transcript and would agree...
Senator Obama is being framed.
HOWEVER...
I also think he should've...
Chosen his words Much more carefully.
But what's done is now done.

It was a grievous error and is now a potential meltdown site for Senator Obama's Pennsylvania Primary hopes...
But...
It is also...
Fixable.

I suggest 2 things:
1) This issue stabs straight into the heart of credibility matter. And Senator Clinton decided to speak out against Senator Obama, amplifying a message that was centrally placed into an absolutely wrong context. This makes it an issue for...
Debate.

Senator Obama can challenge Senator Clinton to prove--show the substance of--her disparaging remarks at the debate.

Senator Clinton, once again, is put into a position to compare her statements--where she 'misspoke', and its context--versus Senator Obama and what he has said and its context. Both she and President Clinton are quick to condemn and judge the unfairness of the media--it's 'double standard--when it works to their advantage. But they seem even more eager to leverage that same 'unfairness' when it benefits them.

She should be made to take a stand on her opportunism.

Obviously...
This is a point she CANNOT win.

Also, Pennsylvanians--and all good people--value justice. They value fairness. If they see Senator Obama fighting for his words--For Truth--that will have profound meaning in their impression of him.

2) Senator Obama should apologize to the Pennsylvania voters.

Not because of the substance of his remarks but because...
He took that message out of the state and, in essence, spoke behind the backs of Pennsylvanians.

He spoke for them and, seemingly...
Without their consent or assent.

They probably appreciate his sentiment but would probably have used different words to characterize themselves.
He should acknowledge that.

Senator Obama was simply a bit insensitive but...
Seeking only to do good not harm.
Ultimately, this is admirable.

In 1991, Americans led a UN-sanctioned, armed and determined, coalition of nations to liberate the State of Kuwait from the clutches of an invading, occupying Republic of Iraq. This operation--Desert Storm--served as rallying point for global citizenship, international collaboration, and a statement of worldwide opposition to tyranny. Historians, economists & social scientists of many nations will examine the impact of that operation for decades to come. But today, in this time of change in our nation, a change that will help shape our future in a time of multitudinous crisis, something more important, more vital, seems apparent...
The American...
1-year olds, 2-year olds, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-year olds of that time...
Grew to be...
The...
11-year olds, 12-year olds, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17-year olds...
The American pre-teens and teenagers of...
2001.
And of September 11th of 2001.

Many of us have lived our entire lives in the shadows of actual wars; substantive military conflicts; and the threat of epic, cataclysmic military destruction. For me, it has been the Cold War, Vietnam, Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Gulf War, the War on Terrorism as well as a number of other conflicts and skirmishes.

And now those children, they are the American...
Late Teenaged Years; Young Adults; High School Graduates; College Students...
The...
18-year olds, 19-year olds, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24-year olds...
And Newest Voters.

Innocents when the tragedies of 9/11/2001 occurred, they've spent their formative years living beneath a shroud of fear and mistrust--both inward and out. They've watched their government contort the living symbol of liberty--the revered Constitution--behind shadows of lies and deceit. In ways few previous generations were able, they've witnessed blood and treasure sacrificed before their eyes--in real time. Their future becoming collateral for a monetary, historical and cultural loan, with no path for its replayment. Left to them. A loan they had no choice or voice in making...
And now...
They can have their say.

How have those events informed and impacted their lives and experiences? What will be their vision for a new world? How will they express their consent or dissent with what their government has done? Is force the antidote to hate? When the Berlin Wall fell did our generation see opportunity and optimism? Did we embrace the chance to leave fear behind? Or did we witness a vacuum, emptiness and lack of opposition? Did we need to fill that space with new adversaries? Did we need more arenas in which to prove our dominance? Our greatness? New ways to establish and extend our victory? The world become fields of most fertile ground, hungry for the seeds of democracy, and we the only qualified farmers?

In the spirit of motivation, we give our youth messages that oftentimes portend violence:
'Progress and growth are the products of power and conflict.';
'Victory no matter the cost.';
'Survival of the fittest.';
'Competition not cooperation.'...

We continue to live in a language of enemies...
Not friends.

I think the record participation of these young people are saying...
'We're going to say something different. We're going to speak WITH the world, not dictate to it.'

We know many of these young people disagree with how our country approaches conflict--how we wage war, how we continue to interact with our international neighbors. (We demand, we sanction, we warn, we threaten.) We know they're uncomfortable with how we shepherd their natural resources, what we waste and squander. (We pollute, we waste, we ravage, we burn the earth.) We know they're fearful about how we broker their future, the way we not merely profit but plunder. (We have a student loan debacle that ranks as even more odious than oil companies pocketing tax incentives.) I imagine they're confused about why--with so many other growing, expanding and emerging nations...
Why did we leave so many of the most urgent problems for them to solve?

Regardless, they're striving to help themselves...
We need to give them some assistance.

This is what makes Senator Obama's candidacy so meaningful. So relevant. And what distinguishes him from his opponents. He is a man looking past personal achievement, and into the greatness we all can share, to which we all aspire...
A great nation of even greater people.

Senator Clinton, in one of her misguided attempts to mock him, spoke of 'celestial choirs'. I say to you that Senator Obama is not a celestial body, but he is a lens. And he seeks to focus the brilliance, the radiance, that is this nation, America, embodied by this Republic, for which we all stand, indivisible, with generous liberty and justice for all. He speaks to an immediacy of action--that things need to change, now; a world that values and strives for inclusion--and that should be our righteous fight, not exclusion; and inspiration that our future will indeed be different--better, historic, in stellar not pedestrian ways.

Things, for profit's sake, we've made more difficult...
We need to remake them easier.

Since Senator Obama is the first participant in this incarnation of the Hardball College Tour, I hope we can do something for those looking to serve the future via a better education...



From the New York Times:

"Tuition has gone up twice the rate of per capita income. If the cost of milk had risen as fast as college since 1980, as Grassley has noted, a gallon would be $15." (link)

And...

"In a fierce contest to control the student loan market, the nation’s banks and lenders have for years waged a successful campaign to limit a federal program that was intended to make borrowing less costly by having the government provide loans directly to students."

"President Bush’s budget reports that in 2006 for every $100 lent by private lenders, the cost to the government of subsidies, defaults and other items was $13.81, while the same amount lent through the direct loan program cost the government $3.85. The battle for dominance in the loan market has escalated as tuitions have soared and students have borrowed more. This is the context for many of the payments to universities and financial aid officials that have come to light as a result of recent investigations into student loan practices." (link)

To finish...
A corollary:
Last evening, I received an email from one of the groups on Senator Obama's website. It was about...
Mrs. Klein.
"...Mrs. Klein of Glenside. She is 93 yrs old, cannot walk very well nor drive, but she contacted me to see if she could volunteer, somehow, for Senator Obama. Apparently, how she got involved, was from her granddaughter, who lives in South Carolina. Mrs. Klein is very eager to help out in some form. She said to me, "I just want to feel as if I contributed something"."

Here is a person who, with her voice, her vote, has helped shaped this current nation. And like others I've heard, she's listening. Listening and helping her granddaughter create our future nation. In a noble and honorable way, she's contributing even more fully to the legacy of her children, grandchildren and future generations. We all hope to live fully, to benefit, from our existence, here, in these United States. But, ultimately, isn't everything we do meant to benefit the future?
Ours and those that follow?

And certainly...
I hope someone from the Obama Campaign thanks her directly.

The current administration, by its actions--its blatant manipulation of the rule of law (executive orders, signing statements, etc); its unflagging pursuit of establishing governments beyond our borders (regime change in Iraq); gross inattention to crises within our borders (Katrina aftermath)--has alienated a significant number of citizens, and also fostered a lingering distrust of how and where domestic issues rank as a priority.

I think we're entering a time--in establishing change in the presidency, change in America--wherein the next presidential administration will reaffirm the Voice of the People and the Will of the People. As the administration addresses domestic policy initiatives, I will consider it a great pleasure and honor to once again have allies in bettering our future.

Because the next administration will need to both heal and create on many fronts, across the globe, I expect its public face and voice will be conveyed in a variety of forms beyond Commander-in-Chief--press secretary, cabinet members and the vice president. I also expect these Ambassadors to the American Public will represent a clear and consistent vision for elevating our nation. I'm looking forward to Constitutional stewardship that, again, respects and values its citizens. I assume I will be seeing a vice president that substantively interacts with Americans (beyond the word "So?"^[1]; isn't driven by personal gain and/or agenda (for himself or his former business partners); and actually seems to enjoy working for the people. I look forward to a process of repair and restoration--demonstrative actions--as an end to dismissal and disapproval of the electorate, and a commitment to renewed respect, appreciation and care of the American People.

I am going to enjoy more than a reinvigorated pride as an American, but a return to global citizenship that inspires others to be...
Proud Of America.
^[1]Link to the full text/context of VP Cheney's comments to the American People (ABC News interview - 3/19/2008.

...but the weekly Presidential YouTube and/or Facebook and/or MySpace and/or iTunes addresses.

We have a president that respects the power of media and technology. The internet will allow us to see our president. He won't be a faceless entity (nor sound anywhere near as grating/mocking/dismissive/contemptuous as our current 'Disdainer-in chief'). Our next president will also be able to provide us with concurrent site video; models/visual representations; graphics/graphs and url links to important associated information.

Our first, truly 21st Century...
President.

Seriously!

While I'm fairly certain Senator Obama has already energized--and can claim--young voters, his most touted demographic weakness is working class voters (incomes less than $50,000, no college degree).

What gets those voters excited? Invested? Willing to fully explore their options and seriously consider Senator Obama in lieu of Senator Clinton?

Where can he meet and persuade those voters?
Gas pumps (and I love the gas station commercial!)?
Wal-Mart?
Target?
Grocery stores?

I'd like to hear a Wal-Mart announcement that Senator Obama was spending 1/2 an hour in the store...
As a greeter.

I'd like that a lot!

With the announcement of the newest incarnation of the 'Hardball' College Tour, I thought it might be instructive to explore something Congressman Paul did so well with his campaign:
Mobilizing younger voters.

I was struck by how coordinated his supporters were, and how quickly they responded to things like text messaging polls. (And I feel safe guaranteeing, it's something marketers are studying, and will be exploring for other contexts, for years to come!) I'm still not certain what the mechanism was but I imagine it was some sort of technology 'bucket brigade' (perhaps leveraging a computing cocktail of Twitter, instant messenging and text messenging), but it was undeniably effective. And I urge the Obama Campaign to do some research and replicate it!

And since college students also love 'free' stuff...
My thought was this:
As Senator Obama traverses the commonwealth, he's going to encounter quite a few campuses.
He might consider coordinating some quick, not-publicly-announced campus visits.

Back when I was in college, there was still a uniform schedule of class times. The campaign would obtain that schedule, position themselves at some central point on campus for the change of classes, then send out text messages to supporters that have registered for those updates. Then for those that show up, they get to meet Senator Obama, and get some free stuff for their effort! Ideally this should be something unique to the date and campus. They show up, display their voter registration card, and receive ome sort of announcement card or button. If time exists to create some stuff, maybe the campaign could provide, say, a 'play only' mp3 player with an intro specific to that campus and its students; and featuring the anti-iraq war speech; the democratic convention speech and the race speech.

If I was a college student...
I'd line up for it.

Even with more than a month available before the primary votes, the predictors and prognosticators forecast a loss in Pennsylvania for Senator Obama.

They're clear: The issue isn't IF he'll lose, the issue is...
By how much.

Even the oft-mentioned, mistakenly leaked, Obama campaign documents projected a loss in the Keystone state. The omnipresent assumption seems to be a loss is inevitable.
However...
I don't think it is.

Many characterize the states major cities as more favorable to Senator Obama; while they shade the less populated areas as more skeptical, more sympathetic to Senator Clinton and more resistant to a platform based on Change. There also seems to be an estimation that these voters are less sophisticated, less informed.

I do NOT accept this.

In dealing with people, while love motivates many, I've also observed that fear and ego are the foundation of action for a substantial number of others.

While sharing many of the priorities we all share--the economy, the safety and security of our nation, the future--those priorities may indeed take different forms. But make no mistakes here, their fears are ours, and their convictions about what should be done to eliminate those fears are valid.

People would like their fears removed. People like to feel smart and informed. People seek to make the best choices and feel that, ultimately, they've elevated our union, not diminished it.

ACTION PLAN
^ Foundation: Like every other state, Pennsylvania is not a monolith in how it selects its political leaders. I think it would be fair to treat it as multiple, small states. And that strategy would've afforded Senator Obama the opportunity to learn about the different regions and speak to each of their needs.

^ I would've recommended Senator Obama start in Harrisburg--FIRST, to establish he was there to campaign in the Complete Commonwealth; then I would've directed him to places like Altoona, Greensburg, State College, Breezewood, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport, etc; and THEN, finally, appear in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

^ I would've urged him to appeal to the intelligence of rural voters. Steve Kroft's '60 Minutes' was staggering as he exposed the lack of reliable, accurate information about Senator Obama. So, begin at the beginning. Let people know why he is campaigning to be president; what his credentials are; what his beliefs are so, when they do vote, they can do it with full knowledge not mistruths/half-truths/untruths.

^ For interacting with the residents, I would've suggested he organize Town hall-style meetings. A lot of them. Meetings where Senator Obama asks the people what they expect/require/desire of a president, where he satisfies them and where he falls short; and where they explain they can be integral, active contributors in a government of change, how a President Obama can help them become more involved in that process, and how they can help a president better serve the people. This makes his visit less an interaction with a poll/pollster and more one of interacting with real people, in a real conversation, with real questions, concerns and genuine answers.

^ I would've recommended that Senator Obama make a visit to all the Pennsylvania newspapers that endorsed him, including the local weeklies, and the 'City Paper'-type publications. Many people read the newspaper during the day, some still rely on it for their news. While visiting, he could speak to their editorial boards, get himself on their front pages--big picture, big headlines--and reinforce and reiterate his message.

^ Next, I would've directed him to the local radio stations--whether conservative or liberal--to get some air time. Be interviewed, be questioned, be there. Let people know that he was willing to answer--directly and candidly--the questions that anyone might have for him. And with those conservative stations, and their commentators, I would've suggested that Senator Obama issue them a challenge: He would appear on their show to discuss real issues, not fodder; engage in a dialogue; then allow all the statements to be reviewed/verified by a mutually selected research organization; when the processing of that information was completed, he would return, share the results with the listeners, and finally both parties would attest to--endorse!--the accuracy of the results. He'd 'win' whether the challenge was accepted or rejected.

^ All of this activity would've cascaded to the major media markets, so he wouldn't have lost any relevancy there. Senator Obama could also have visited a number of colleges to ensure the energy, vibrancy and vigorous support of young voters was maintained.

^ I would've encourage him to get some video cameras; get behind, not in front of, the lens; and make the shot about the people--their views, their ideas, their dreams--and let them talk about how he cam help them address all of those concerns.

^ Continuing with the camera theme, I'd would've arranged to link Obama supporters from other states--via video phones/iPhones/satellite links/etc--so they could demonstrate and dicuss why they support Senator Obama's campaign; explain their yearning for change; and explain why they support the main theme--'Yes, we can!' I think in showing other yet similar families, other yet similar communities would help to lower any resistance to his legitimacy as a candidate for president.

^ For TV commercials, I would've suggested he primarily use regular people to strengthen the delivery of his message. People that are, and will continue to be, ardent supporters of the Obama campaign. People who are union workers; working in, or residents of, nursing homes; people going to work/coming home from work; in the stores looking in their wallets; at the gas pump; at the computer emailing family in Iraq or Afghanistan; people on the bus/subway; farmers; truckers; etc. who are like the people in these areas where Senator Obama is projected to lose. People they can relate to; people like them.

^ To solidify his understanding of these people, and the importance of their concerns, I would've ensured that Senator Obama commit to returning and promise to do that. To return during the campaign for the general election, and to return after he was eleected president. I don't have the research but, intuitively, I think people are more inclined to trust people they know they can rely on. Senator Obama will have to address many more issues in the course of this campaign, one he should NOT have to address is his devotion to the People of the United States of America. In that, he should be beyond reproach. Letting people know they will be neither ignored nor forgotten would more than solidify that truth.

^ On the issue of faith, Senator Obama has (it seems to me) been continually/perpetually/eternally addressing his faith for over a week; however, that may not be enough effort to satisfy and reassure some people. I'd suggest he explore having other religious leaders--leaders that people know better, might see more regularly, and thus imbue with more respect--endorse and speak about him and the strength of his faith.

Above all, I would position him to concentrate on--to focus on--people that are eager for change but have reservations that he is their best conduit. I would advocate a focus on the people that aren't his core constituency...
But have the potential to be.

While I try to avoid sports analogies and metaphors, I noted one commentator comparing Senator Obama to Jackie Robinson. How Jackie Robinson was chosen not merely for his talent but because he was an exemplary representative as an agent of change for Major League Baseball--as the first, he had to be--in all ways--the best. I pondered this for a moment or two. And ultimately concluded that characterization was incorrect. Senator Obama strikes me as someone closer to, say, the 'Tiger Woods' of politics...
It's not merely a situation where he's 'The First'.
It's that his abilities are so superior to everyone else that preceded him he's redefined how the game should be played...
Except as I maintain, and reiterate...
Politics is not and should not--Ever--be conceptualized as a game. It is not an enterprise of teams or scores, victories or defeats. It is the institution that best represents the will of people working together for our common good.

It is NOT a competition...
But a coalition.

I think Senator Obama understands that.