Obama gets what he wants: a stimulus bill of huge proportions. And he gets credit in the press for at least TRYING to be bipartisan. How is this not a win-win for Obama?

When we talk about forcing the Republicans to expend resources in areas they normally take for granted, most people are thinking about money. But we mustn't forget the other resource a campaign needs: operatives and organizers.

When the field is spread the GOP has to spread out their operatives in more states. That means less of a chance for them to pull some hanky-panky in certain states.

In 2000 and 2004 the GOP only had to concentrate there efforts on 3-4 states. So they dumped a ton of operatives into Florida, Ohio and the others. The result were elections that were obviously flawed in ways that were favorable to Republicans.

When those operatives have to spread out to 14 states they can't coordinate as well and thus it becomes harder for them to "rig" things in their favor.

In battlefield terms, when you fight on multiple fronts it becomes that much harder to allocate your limited number of spies and provocateurs in an effective way.

After watching the video I've concluded that she was NOT making the argument that a potential assassination was a good reason to stay in the race this long. She was making the argument, as suggested here, that the '68 race lasted until June so why should she be so quick to get out (kind of ignores the fact that we have a much more accelerated primary schedule, but that's beside the point).

Unfortunately, I think she let her mouth get ahead of her brain and she introduced the topic of the assassination into the conversation.

So, I don't think she was making a dark hint. I do, however, think she was being incredibly stupid in not realizing how bad it would look to be even talking about this in the way she did. I bet if you polled the question you find a significant minority of Democrats are seriously worried about Obama not surviving this campaign. But few people want to talk about this openly just because of the jinx factor.

It was stupidity, not perfidity. But it was the kind of stupidity that demonstrates that she is not fit to run for the office of president.

I think what Ruy is actually knocking down is the "Magic Bullet" Myth. This is the myth that Progressives would be on top of the heap if they just did this ONE thing differently.

Winning requires a combination of good plays and good strategies. Framing and mobilization, as Chris points out, won't solve the problem by themselves. But they are surely part of the solution.

Unfortunately, discussing framing has become almost useless because critics of it invariably misunderstand what framing is all about. They think it is just a reworking of messaging.

No. Framing is much deeper than that. Framing is about the way our brain processes new information. It processes it by placing it within pre-existing frames of understanding. A message cannot work if it doesn't activate the frame correctly.

Framing as a political strategy is not about coming up with better slogans. It is about laying the groundwork within the subconscious that those slogans can then work on. It is about creating a background of understanding about issues that favors progressive causes.

Reframing is a program that will take DECADES to achieve. Republicans already understand this. They started doing it 30 years ago. The fruits of their labor took that long to be picked.

Messaging is the key. Framing is the car.

I REALLY wish critics of framing would understand this before they dismiss it.

...on the unpopularity of Republicans. As a political strategy it is ultimately self-defeating.

Yes, the GOP is less popular than the Dems right now, but what about a year from now?

People want something to vote for.

Once again the Democrats are ruled by consultants who think that playing defense is the best way of winning. But all this really does is reinforce the idea that Democrats won't fight for what they believe in. And if they won't fight for what they believe in then why should we (The American People) trust them to defend them against people who want to kill them?

The language of capitulation is clear: if you give up something in the belief that it will make an enemy treat you better you are a fool. Would Osama bin Laden be nicer to us if we give up something to him?

There's a reason why Republicans, for all their incompetence, corruption and general all around loopiness, still has an appeal for the voters: at least we know they will fight.

(Aside: I'm breaking my general rule of not using Republican talking points when describing Democrats because to do so only validates them. But when the Democrats live down to the negative portrayal the Republicans have made of them then there is really no choice but to point out how they are doing so.)

The Democrats are louse when it comes to Message Wars. They have allowed the Republicans to paint the Irag Supplemental debate as a debate over funding the troops when it is really a debate over funding Bush's war. The result is Dems running scared at even the suggestion that they would do anything to "harm the troops".

The reason so many Democrats buy into the stories that Dems will cave is because the Dems have allowed their party to be painted as the party that caves. Blaming the media for spreading false stories is pointless. This is the media environment we have today. Railing against it won't help. It will just feed into the image of Dems as flailing around.

If the Democrats can't win the message war then they damn well better stop blaming the media for it. Fight harder dammit and stop making excuses!

It's the same thing we saw in the claim that Republicans were so dominant because so much of the map was red after 2000 and 2004. Some of these people actually seem to believe that there is something magical in red state soil that will turn all who move there into Republicans.

What they forget is that the people who move in are changing the land at the same time the land is changing them.

Massachusetts used to be one of the most conservative states in the nation.

This is basic framing. Obama may honestly think he is defending progressives and liberals by saying he is not like the right-wing stereotypes. But by making that assertion he creates the impression that those stereotypes have validity. He gives them weight.

I don't have any reason to believe he is doing it intentionally in order to triangulate. I want to believe he is not doing it intentionally. But I don't know him well enough to come to a conclusion on this and I have far to much experience with politicians who DO do it deliberately to just shrug it off when it happens. Especially when it comes from someone as promising as Obama.

...we have to begin the effort to bring down Saint McCain.

But the mistake most people make is in thinking that the Center has an ideology akin to the Left or the Right. Some political strategists (I call them losers) think that all they have to do is figure out what that ideology is, appeal to it, while not overtly pissing off the base, and the electoral votes will come pouring in.

But, as I said, the Center has no ideology. That is their defining characteristic. They are The Center because they just don't pay that much attention to politics and don't really care all that much about that the things that activate The Left or The Right.

So what does activate The Center? It changes with every season. It changes with whatever is the favorite TV show that year. It changes with whichver major league sports team is on top that year. It changes with the weather. Or with who has attacked us most recently.

You get The Center vote for you not by appealing to their non-existant ideology but by making The Center think that what they believe and what you believe are the same thing.

That's how you win The Center.

Check out the video of Kean talking at the podium. Right behind him is a woman holding this sign up (and Kean supporters desperately trying to obscure it with their own signs).

And it just got broadcast all over New Jersey!

If the media covers the controversy over this ad they will probably have to broadcast it in whole or in parts. That will increase its penetration into the electorate.

But it would be ironic if new channels, when airing the ads as part of a news story, decided to bleep out the "piss-poor" and "God-damned" portions. If they don't, then they risk FCC action. If they do, then they make it sound even worse for Burns since people will fill in the blanks with potentially even worse words.

...to object to being labeled unpatriotic and traitorous?

And will he/she have, in the past, scoffed at Democrats who reacted similarly?