McCain is resorting to the Strong Man theory of history, arguing that his extreme suffering as a POW transformed him profoundly and gave him special strength. He claims that the fortitude he gained from his suffering makes him uniquely capable of implementing top-down change. The authoritarian change that McCain and his neocon allies want violates our core democratic values. He will make the Presidency more Imperial and he will make the country more imperialistic, as did Bush.

If Americans are offered a choice between two Strong Men, McCain will win with "Peace Through Strength." Obama can't win an argument about who will be the stronger authoritarian.

        I think we all have to be pleased that Obama has pledged to eschew negative campaigning. The candidate behind which I have thrown my support is one whose top concern seems to be elevating the tenor and tone of political discourse.
        Such a cause is perhaps our country's greatest need. We have reached a time when Owellian talking points and de facto cultural segregation have produced two discrete and frighteningly homogeneous voting blocs, separated by an idea gap across which no single issue seems to bridge. As a culture, we seem to listen only to ideas we've arrived at ourselves. Sadly, 51% currently represents consensus.
        So I was excited to hear that Obama has promised to run a positive campaign. But at the present time, I remain unconvinced he will actually do so. This is not to say that he is going to run attack ads, or attempt to smear McCain's personal image--he won't And he won't need to. Independent groups and we, the left-wing but right-thinking blogosphere will doubtlessly take care of that. Some are even speculating that Drudge himself may touch matches to McCain's effigy.
        Nevertheless, simply not attacking does not mean Obama will be going positive, or even non-negative. There's a mystical strain in the rich religious legacy of the West called negative theology. Its premise is that the highest deity is so great that our meager brains and its languages are inadequate to grasp the concepts that constitute a full understanding of God. Instead, we can only enumerate and delimit those things that God is not: it is not evil; it is not unjust; it is not finite, either temporally or spatially, and so on. As for what it is: quite literally, I couldn't say.
        The Greek term for this practice--defining a thing through negations, rather than positive assertions--is apophasis. Ever heard of it? Probably not: it tends not to work very well, in my experience. My concern is that Obama--and the Democratic Party--are engaged in a similar process with this "third term of George Bush" tagline, a campaign based on apophasis more than self-assertion.
        The fundamental strategy is sound: we are all familiar with the maxim that a candidate must define her opponent. Control the narrative surrounding a candidacy, and you control the candidate.
        But here's the thing. Defining McCain as Bush, and ergo Obama as not-Bush, is not sufficient. We've run against George Bush twice, and lost. Are you so sure that things have changed that much?
        In a sense, Al Gore's most clearly articulated claim was that he was not Bill Clinton. Obviously, that and the fact he was the incumbent overseeing the greatest economic period in a half-century was not enough to get him the White House. (It got him enough popular votes, and probably enough electoral votes, but not the White House. In any case, it should have been a blowout, but wasn't).
        John Kerry's claim was roughly a forty-six-word-long sentence that culminated in "more of the same." I am not George Bush, he said, in elegantly crafted sentences that were difficult to splice into the CNN reports geared towards my six-month-old daughter's attention span.
        For those of you who've read the book, Dr. Frankenstein's monster was extraordinarily eloquent. That's the second thing he had in common with Kerry. The third is that despite his eloquence, he still wound up in an arctic wasteland.
        Meanwhile, George Bush huckseterd a slack-jawed electorate, yukking it up in his phony good ole boy idiom. He'd sputter out some incomprehensible nonsense about yard work 'n huntin, or about the internets and nucular bombs. He claimed he was a simple man whose viscera held more sway over his decision-making than his brains. For one, that was true. For another, people like that because everybody has guts, at least.
        Bush campaigns did define his opponents. They piggy-backed on burly shoulders of a decades-long attack on the definition of the word "liberal" and called his opponent that as often as he could. He delivered it like the word itself tasted so bad he could hardly muster the will to spit it out.
        He also vilified the hitherto virtuous act of actually thinking through an issue. If George Bush never changes his mind, then simply demonize the very notion of changing one's mind. If in the process, one must suggest that any deviation in a previously held idea is anathema to leadership, so be it. And so learning itself, being an alteration in the contents of one's mind, was scuttled to the bottom of a vast ocean of nepotism and incompetence.
        But more importantly, Bush defined himself as a "compassionate conservative" and--despite the odd fact that he quit drinking--he was a guy you could have a beer with. Or, I suppose, a guy you could go on a cocaine-bender with (so you know he had Wall Street's vote). And enough people bought it, and the dems never really tried to knock him off that position.       
        So I implore you, David Axlerod's intern whose job it is to read blogs: pass this message along! I'm not saying it's wrong to affiliate McCain with Bush to some degree. But you won't convince most of the country that he's not a maverick: he's owned that narrative too long.
        Instead, you have to redefine the idea of a maverick itself. A maverick is an unbridled horse, one that cannot be ridden. Forget the "changing horses midstream" cliche; ask the country if it wants to be bucked off a maverick horse midstream. Yard-work and hunting dads will understand this analogy. Ask the country if unpredictable and inconsistent is the animal we want carrying our children on its back.
        Remind the independent voter that wildness and independence are not one and the same. Being a maverick means straying off the trail--even if it's the trail McCain himself has previously blazed.
        Then talk about how he's changed his stance on every single issue. Forget flip-flops: you can't get shoes of any kind on a maverick horse!
        Meanwhile, define yourselves in positive terms. Yes, people want change. But George Bush delivered plenty of change, and none of it was good. What kind of change are you offering? I know you probably think you are asserting yourselves. This "Change That Works for You" is not bad, but the fact is that it smacks of Homer Simpson's "Let Someone Else Do It" slogan in his pitch for Springfield's garbage commissioner: maybe not so good? Give it a think. It may allow the right-wing attack machine the chance to break out their "big government liberal" paint and start brushing towards a corner.
        In any case, either the media aren't hearing your positive message, or if they are, they're not saying. Get on top of this soon.

While working to win the November elections, Democratic Party activists need to begin transforming the Party into a grassroots, activist organization that mobilizes its members year-round to implement its platform. We can start now to create new, easily reproduced models for how the Party can do more than just work on elections.

As soon as the Presidential election is over, we must follow through with ongoing action.  Franklin Roosevelt once told some reformers, "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it." The next President will likely hold that same sentiment.

The "system" will still be in place. The super wealthy, giant corporations, and their allies will continue to exercise great influence on Congress, the media, the economy, and throughout society. To overcome that power, promote democracy, establish justice, and protect the environment, the American people will need to mobilize as never before.

Barack Obama speaks eloquently about self-reformation. At a commencement in New Hampshire, he affirmed overcoming selfishness. On Martin Luther King Day, he discussed enhancing empathy. In The Audacity of Hope, he presented a vision of profound moral renewal. In his speeches, he regularly addresses the importance of taking personal responsibility.

We, the American people, need to help each other practice what he preaches.

One way you could achieve that goal would be to invite friends and/or relatives who want to work together in support of the Obama campaign to participate in an "Obama Support Group." The proposed agenda for the gathering could be something like the following:

We progressive activists need to change ourselves as well as the world. Self-reformation can enhance both our personal quality of life and our political efforts.

In my investigations, including the Questionnaire of Self-Improvement, the most frequent self-improvement goal reported has been to become less judgmental and more understanding of others. Many progressive-minded individuals also say that activists, including themselves, need to be less arrogant and more humble, more joyous, better listeners, less competitive and more cooperative, less dominating and more democratic, less intellectual and more intelligent emotionally, less ideological and more accepting of various points of view, less obsessed with objective goals and more present in the here and now to the whole person (not just his or her "political" side), and better able to take care of themselves for the long haul.

These are only some of the many ways that we can better ourselves and grow supportive, activist communities dedicated to transforming our social system.

I invite you to join in a discussion of how the progressive movement might be more effective. Together, we might refine proposals for action that could help us move forward. Following are some initial thoughts of my own.

A Clear, Concise, Comprehensive Vision Statement

We need a proactive statement of our core principles that could help hold all of us together over the long haul and provide the basis for occasional, massive, united action on timely, winnable issues. Greater consensus in this regard could attract more activists by offering a positive vision, as well as soften internal conflicts by reminding us of our purpose. I offer What We Stand For, a statement that some associates and I have developed (for a proposed new project, the development of "home-grown communities"), as an example of the kind of vision statement that could be useful.

++++++

Communicating from the Heart

Much political discourse is too intellectual or too one-way. We need to learn how to talk from the heart -- and listen from the heart. We need to do more than presenting policy prescriptions. We also need to help awaken people from egocentric preoccupations by discussing moral values in a heartfelt manner. We need to do more than trying to persuade others to do what we want them to do. We also need to pay attention to what they think and feel, and decide together how to proceed.

++++++++

Overcoming Arrogance

In the long run, acting superior is counterproductive, but many, if not most, progressive activists compete with each other for higher rank and adopt an air of superiority toward people who aren't activists. From the perspective of the universe, each individual is but a small leaf on an enormous tree, part-and-parcel of the miracle of life. The world is amazing precisely because each individual is so small. The infinite makes us finite. Facing this enormous mystery honestly is a humbling experience that illuminates our own limits (including death) and our need for support. Genuine humility is essential, the most important starting point for a progressive worldview that is effective. Progressive activists need to stop being so arrogant.

IT'S TIME HILLARY ASKED FOR HER MONEY BACK AND CUT THE STRINGS

To date she has already paid Mark Penn, "the great strategist" ever over $5 million to help her secure that piece of real estate on Pennsylvania Avenue and she has little to show for her money.

It appears that he only has two strategies to offer:  "Psst Let's tell them that you are inevitable.  We will tell them that there is no point in going to the polls as you are the winner.  If that doesn't work: cry and we will get their sympathy."

Now in Texas, it appears that he has begun the same tired strategy with a slight variation:  "Psst Let's tell them that you are inevitable because you have the Hispanic vote all locked up." 

Obama has not even been to Texas yet and already the Hispanic strategy is falling apart.  Day before yesterday the San Antonio Express News announced that Rep. Charle Gonzalez D-San Antonio who also happens to be a super delegate endorsed Senator Barack Obama.