This Just In: Purse Strings Have Strings Attached

Congressional Democrats,

A defining moment for the Democratic brand is upon you: how you handle the showdown with the President over Iraq War funding will be inevitably tied to the Democratic Party's ability to lead this country.

I can appreciate what you're doing -- fulfilling your political mission to challenge the current war policy because you were voted into the majority to do just that. While passing bills that attempt to handcuff the Commander-in-Chief in his ability to set war policy certainly smacks of chutzpah, you can do much better in positioning your actions and rationale with the American people.

The bill you recently sent to the President has timetables attached to the money he needs to continue his war policy. Yet Bush is effortlessly brushing aside your advances. It turns out, he's not interested in the dance (look, if he was interested in mingling with a spunky dance partner, do you think he would have married Laura?)

I understand that it is very hard to see the forest for the trees when you live and work in the forest. This is precisely why Our Karl Rove exists -- so take heed of Your Karl Rove's advice to make sure that what makes sense for the country also makes sense to the country.

"We're not giving you a spending bill. We're giving you an accountability bill."

"We're your CFO. And as CFO, we have not been at all pleased with how you're spending the people's tax dollars on this war. As a result, moving forward, you will only get money from us with strings attached."

"Our troops deserve our support, but your leadership does not. As a result, we will be providing funds for our troops to succeed, and providing you with deadlines because you do not seem to be able to set your own."

"Mr. President, the very fact that you require more supplemental spending four years into this war is a sign of failure, not leadership."

These talking points set the context that you are not political guns, but hired representatives trying to do your job responsibly. You were voted into the majority to keep this administration in check. These talking points help ensure that your actions are seen as constructive and positive, versus political and negative.

The President no doubt will continue attempting to portray you as hollow, shameless partisans trying to manipulate public opinion for political gain. You'll want to privately remind him to look in the mirror, while publicly remind him and the public that you're just doing your constitutional duty.

And, depending on how much chutzpah you have left after a few rounds of this verbal sparring, you might want to add that you have political capital, and that you plan on spending it to help move this country back in the right direction.

Postscript: A quick note regarding gun laws in the wake of the Virginia Tech Massacre: There is no one unified belief system in this country around gun control -- opinions vary greatly from state to state. As a result, it would be the most politically advantageous for Democrats to take the position of letting each state decide what's best for its citizens, but the federal government should subsidize states that choose to adopt and enforce gun control.

Democrats: Are You Ready to Rumble?

Democrats,

The spinmeisters in this reckless administration have cooked up another brew-ha-ha. The primary ingredients in this round are 'Democratic partisanship' and 'Democrats trying to politicize government' when the nation's business needs attending to. In his latest speech, Bush warns of a "fishing expedition" and "show trials" in an effort for Democrats to score political points.

The good news is that this is pretty standard Republican rhetoric -- conservatives are generally a fearful bunch and really do feel like they're consistently under threat by some outside force. Since this is really nothing new, it will be quite easy (and, quite honestly, fun) to turn this around on them. The other bit of good news is that the President has given you a gift if you are willing to accept it (we'll talk more about this "gift" later).

The bad news is that there are a lot of politically independent people in America that are fearful of the unknown as well. According to recent Gallup polls, most Americans do not feel safe on a number of fronts. And Bush's rhetoric could have a rallying effect on those who aren't following this scandal's nuances, and might also see our injured President trying to "protect" the Oval Office from the image of savage, salivating Democrats just looking to take down their President.

This means that your responses need to be finely-tuned to ensure maximum impact and to minimize any rallying effect Bush's "fighting words" might create:

"The only thing we're fishing for is the truth."

"Astonishingly, the President is not willing to allow his aides to testify under oath. The only logical conclusion is that he must, for some reason, think they're going to lie. "

"What we see here is a deeply troubling pattern in this administration. Scooter Libby has already been found guilty by a jury of his peers for lying under oath, and now other administration aides are being instructed by the President not to swear to G-d to tell the truth. We must ask ourselves: Is there any truth left in this administration?"

"The American people need to ask themselves if they are comfortable with a President who is so afraid of the truth that he refuses to let his aides testify under oath."

"We can only assume that if Karl Rove and other presidential aides will not speak to us under oath that there is a reason for this. Why are they afraid to swear to G-d to tell the truth to the American people?"

"The President talks tough about 'show trials' and 'fishing expeditions,' yet at the end of the day, he is clearly afraid of us uncovering the dirty deeds of his administration. Why else would he stonewall an investigation?"

"This Republican administration has been behind their wall of secrecy for too long. They've let us down too many times, and now it's time to come out into the daylight and show America what they've been up to. "

"This is about the rule of law, nothing more, nothing less. This administration has declined our request for sworn testimony under G-d, so we are sadly forced to issue subpoenas to officials in our very own government in order to get the truth."

"It's honestly hard to believe how far this administration will go to avoid telling the American people the truth."

There are a couple of important concepts embedded in these talking points that are worth noting:

• None of the talking points talk specifically about the Attorney General scandal. This is intentional, because this row with the President is not about this scandal anymore -- it's about a new "war for secrecy" that has been waged by this administration.
  
• Testifying under oath is a big part of the issue here, because it signals to our famously religious America that testifying under oath is all about swearing to tell the truth under G-d, plain and simple. This is now about an administration that is trying to avoid sin. Think about this carefully, because the new religious fervor in our country makes this a finer point than merely a legal one.

These talking points set the groundwork to ensure Democrats are not seen as the salivating partisan goons that the President just depicted you as. Once that bedrock has been laid, you have the opportunity to open the 'gift' that the President gave you -- the gift of raising this debate to new heights that could very well overwhelm this entire administration. If you're willing to go there, you can do a very Rovian thing: use their own strength ("hunkerin' down fer a fight") and turn it into their weakness by attacking them on your terms:

"If we've come to the point where our very own government is afraid to swear to G-d to tell the truth, then unfortunately the time has come to consider an even larger investigation into the overall level of corruption of this administration."

Yes, these are fighting words, and yes, it's a risky proposition. But it's something to be seriously considered in your strategy meetings. When are you going to pull out the big guns and use your new majority powers to expose an administration that comparatively makes Nixon look like a six-year-old stealing candy from the local drug store?

Make no mistake -- the big fish here is not Gonzales; it is the wall of secrecy around the Executive branch which is a patent abuse of power. The President gave you a gift -- a fight for something bigger and more important that a single scandal (which we all know is merely one of many). The framers of this nation would find this wall of secrecy unacceptable, as should contemporary Americans. Sliding into a totalitarian state like Russia is the last thing the American people expect or deserve. But if you, Democrats, don't shine a bright light on it, we may continue to slide.

Democrats: Are you our Mommy or our CFO?

Democrats,

You are still missing the mark in the opposition on the War in Iraq. You appear to be trapped in the mindset that it's your job to fix Bush's mistakes, and that America is looking to you to right all of Bush's wrongs. While this is certainly understandable, it's not working.

You are trapped in this mindset because you think of yourselves the wrong way. You have to shift your focus and rethink your persona: Are you the Mommy that wields the power of the purse and cares solely about the well-being of each soldier? Or are you the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) that invests funds to support the appropriate winning strategies?

As political leaders in charge of the budget, Americans want a CFO.

As CFO, you will shift your focus from the troops, troop levels, and troop deployments to America's approach to foreign policy. And as CFO, you also need to think of your budget as the tool that advances America's strategies that you decide are worth investing in.

As you rethink your role as CFO, you will start to see that your attempt at getting directly involved in the Iraq War planning is a losing proposition. Since you're not in the direct line of military command, you simply cannot know what troop levels, caps, or deployments are needed. In business terms, you should be a strategic executive, yet you are acting like an operations analyst. That's why the term "micro-manager" keeps cropping up.

Worse, getting involved in the details entangles you in Bush's disastrous strategy: If you get your way, then anything bad that may happen moving forward can -- and will -- be blamed squarely on you and your troop management policies. If you don't get your way, then you're just an ineffective body trying -- but failing -- to micromanage the President.

Hello? Aren't any of your staffers and strategists telling you this?

Moving forward, you have to do two things: Get unraveled from the war execution details, and then re-assert your role as the Chief Financial Officer.

First, some talking tips to help re-separate Democrats from the failed Republican foreign policy strategy:

• The fate of our troops remains in the Commander-In-Chief's hands -- not Congress'.
• The President should be listening more closely to Congress, but he won't until Republican congressmen support us.
• Our troops risk their lives every day, and we want the President to think about how to best deploy our military every single day.
• Because the administration is still solely responsible for the war effort, every loss America takes is a result of a failed Republican foreign policy strategy.
• Stop talking about getting our troops "out of harm's way." Our armed forces volunteered to be trained to be in harm's way. That's their job. It's the Generals' job to ensure their troops are safe, not the Congress. You sound like the Mommy Party when the country really needs strategic leadership.

As the Mommy, you're missing the opportunity to influence America's real foreign policy challenges and hold the President and your Republican colleagues accountable for mismanaging the Iraq War and the greater War on Terror.

From the CFO persona, think through these ideas and embed them into your messaging:

• Bush's pet project in Iraq is a very dangerous experiment. The Taliban and Al Q'aida are regrouping in Afghanistan, where the President took his eye off the ball.
• This is not about Iraq and troop surges. This is about a failed Middle East engagement.
• Bush's foreign policy is not how you stop terrorism. This is how you create more terrorism aimed at America.

And if you're looking for a cute soundbite to cut through the news clutter:

"Just like Vice President Cheney, President Bush misfired and shot Iraq in the face when he should have been aiming at Afghanistan."

These are broader strokes, and exactly what the Congress should be talking about. You should be cutting Bush's foreign policy strategy off at the knees, and not at the toes.

One of the advantages of talking strategically is that you can gain broad consensual agreement when there are no details. In addition, you will reset the context of the debate from tactics to strategy, which is exactly what the budget should be tied to. Since you have the "power of the purse" (which evokes motherly images), rethink your persona and be the equivalent of a CFO -- and invest dollars against a strategic plan.

Americans will be more impressed with a CFO's investment decisions than where Mommy decided to spend the money in her purse.

Democrats: Stronger, More Honest Language is Needed

Democrats,

With your newly regained power in full throttle in congress, it's admittedly more difficult to provide useful political messaging advice on a regular basis. Compared to the days of John Kerry and Al Gore leading the party, the Democrats are much more in-step with how America likes to be spoken to. For instance, Jim Webb is the perfect "voice of the Democratic Party" to give the response to the State of the Union address. In fact, it might be the first time in decades where the response is stronger than the address.

However, there continues to be a serious problem. With the Iraq debacle, while you have come out strongly against the administration's "surge" strategy, there are two major problems with your approach that need to be addressed now:

1. You aren't being honest with yourselves or with the American people (even though you might think you are): You are not really against a "surge." How can you be? How can you really be against adding reinforcements that our troops so desperately need if they're going to be stuck in Iraq like the President demands? To repeat: if the President is determined to keep our troops in Iraq, then they do need additional support.
   
   What you actually are -- and should be -- against, however, is the President's leadership and judgment as Commander-in-Chief. So, it's not that you don't support additional troop support, it's that you don't respect the Commander-in-Chief's judgment any longer. This is direct, to the point, politically expedient, and imminently accurate.
   
   Think about it: If we actually trusted this administration's ability to execute a war strategy effectively, then a majority of people would support this surge. In fact, weren't most Democrats and Generals in support of adding more troops back in 2004? Of course, but that was before we had the unmistakable evidence in hand that this was a confident-not-competent administration.
   
   
2. You are letting Senator Hagel be the mouthpiece of reason to lead the bi-partisan offensive against this administration's war strategy. This is a mistake in the context of rebuilding and recasting the Democratic Party brand with the American people.
   
   Sure, you burnish your bi-partisanship credentials by walking side-by-side with Hagel, but if you ever want to be in the executive branch again, the idea of a Democrat has got to be more than being decent and reasonable -- Democrats also need to have the strength and conviction to make the tough decisions and stand by them even when they're not bi-partisan.
   

Here are some talking points to support these ideas:

"Democrats and Americans have had a lot of patience with this administration's ability to conduct the Iraq war. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to express our loss of confidence in their ability to lead our troops to victory. So, for as long as this administration remains in office, we have no choice but to push for withdraw and redeployment. Due to the failed policies of this administration and the failed Republican congress of the past four years, we are unfortunately left with no better options for our brave men and women."

"Most Democrats and Americans would prefer that their government conduct itself in a bi-partisan, pro-American manner. And to show this commitment, Democrats have quickly established bi-partisan partnership in our campaign against this President's Iraq strategy. Let's be clear, though: The Democratic-led congress will not be bullied or threatened by an administration that has lost support both here and abroad. Not since Nixon has an administration's credibility been so tarnished by getting so many things so wrong, and all the while abusing the trust and power we, the people, entrust with this great office."

Democrats in Power, But Powerful?

Democrats,

Finally, you have some political power. And almost instantly, you have a problem. And it's a big one.

Before we figure out how to solve your big problem, there's good news -- OKR is back to help for the majority of 2007-2008. A quick note for those who think that "Karl Rove" is no longer politically relevant: Recall that Our Karl Rove helped the Dems win the mid-term elections, as compared to Their Karl Rove, who helped the 'Pubs lose the mid-term election.

And OKR has a plan to get you out of the little political pickle that is the Iraq War and your new responsibilities to deal with it.

First, the pickle explained: Americans voted you into power primarily due to their unhappiness with this administration's -- and prior congress's -- failure to effectively prosecute this war. These voters want this war to come to an end -- who can blame them? On the other hand, the reality is that we just can't pick up and leave a country we invaded in order to stabilize. Simply leaving abruptly (within 6-10 months) is likely to have adverse affects that would even further damage our global reputation with our allies and enemies.

In essence, the public wants instant gratification, and the country can hardly afford to screw up the entrance and the exit. Democrats were elected to resolve this discrepancy.

The Responsible Democratic Political & Messaging Strategy

• Do not talk about what power you don't have ("It's up to Bush, he's the Commander-in-Chief); talk about the power you do have ("Democrats now how power to cut off this President if he doesn't make decisions good for America")
• Don't make predictions about the war. You weren't elected to know everything; you were elected to solve problems better than Republicans could. Focus your message on how you're going to responsibly put this war to rest.
• Resist talking about committees and hearings; talk instead about using your majority status to finally influence this administration's failed policies.
• Promise Americans that you will set parameters for all war funding moving forward. This is what your new power affords you, and shows America that you're not hesitant to use the power you have.
  

As proposed here over and over, you should summarize your Iraq strategy under the Support & Rebuild banner. Support & Rebuild is a much different strategy than Bush's Attack and Train strategy, and would signal a new perspective on the situation. Support & Rebuild means working with the region to support stabilization, and Rebuild means focusing on critical infrastructure, alliances, relationships, and trust. Support & Rebuild has the opportunity, eventually, to not be thought of as a "war" strategy but as a "foreign aid" strategy.

If Democrats can change the face of this from war to foreign aid (before the Republicans do it), then Democrats will get the credit for ending the war quickly, yet not be forced to prematurely exit and risk further middle-east destabilization.

Welcome Back; You Did Dem Good.

Democrats in Power,

Welcome back. Yes, the "back" bit is key. The media helped you out a bit here, but it does reflect the cultural blueprint of this nation: America has a blue body and a red cap. In other words, all things being equal, we like our Congress blue and our Executive red. Why this makes sense is the subject of another blog at another time, but for now, let's just be glad that you're back where you belong. As for Rove's Permanent Republican Majority, it's best to just say nothing and let such fantasies remain in his... fantasies.

Since you won, you've done a splendid job positioning yourselves as a force for change. You have correctly interpreted the voters and aptly messaged yourselves to begin the process of regaining respect and dignity. The Democratic brand has been damaged, and you need to slowly but surely rebuild it with the American people.

Now that you have seats of power, the media will be more interested in your ideas, and this will give you the national spotlight required to re-establish what Democratic leadership means. It will give you the ability to brandish your unique set of Democratic American Values.

Here are a few points to keep in mind as you ramp up to national leadership in a tough -- yet moderate -- political climate.

When the press says "you won the elections on the back of the Iraq war, but what are you doing now that you've won?"... you answer:

"We've already done a lot and stand for a lot:

• The very fact that we won has already forced Rumsfeld out of his post.
  
• Have you read the international media? They're thanking America. The American voters want to regain our respect in the world, and the very fact that Democrats won helps us regain respect.
  
• We're already breaking up the sinister one-party system that ensured that the people's business would not be done. Congress only worked 3-day weeks because there was nothing to do but to suck up to lobbyists.
• We'll happily confirm Casey to Replace Rumsfeld, and will happily not confirm Bolton for the UN post.
• Americans want the Iraq quagmire to end. We promised the voters we'd take action, and we are. Rumsfeld leaving means the whole war strategy will change, and we will continue to pressure this administration -- as we promised -- to make real progress so we can put this war to bed for good."

Keep your words action-oriented, forward-leaning, and feel the mandate of the voters. President Clinton said that the voters did not give you a mandate, they gave you a chance. I would modify this slightly by saying that the voters handed you a mandate -- and it's on you to execute on their mandate.

Executing on your mandate means pushing this President as hard as you can to fix the Iraq disaster, start showing your fiscal responsibility character, and by all means, highlight your democratic values of respect for law, debate, civility, reason, logic, and clarity.

The time is now. It's your opportunity to give this country something to be proud of. Make us proud of our choice.

It's Crunch Time: OKR Talking Points for Tight Races

Democrats running for elections in key states,

Here is the current electorate forecast: A large -- but weak -- progressive front has blanketed the nation due to scattered policy failures (the Iraq war, the national debt, Republican scandals), and a veritable downpour of books poking holes in the Republican brand. Yet, patches of conservatism and regression are breaking through whenever intolerance, fear, or greed are made the topic of conversation.

What should Democratic candidates wear based on this forecast? They should slip into tight-fitting topics like... an endless Iraq war, an endless national debt, endless Republican scandals, all while reciting excerpts from the seemingly endless supply of highly credible books that discredit this Republican-lead government.

Talking Points For All Candidates Running against Incumbents

• My Republican opponent has stayed the course with George Bush and ignored your concerns, your families, and your well-being.
• My Republican opponent shares George Bush's, Dick Cheney's, and Donald Rumsfeld's values of endless wars, endless spending, and endless corruption.
• My Republican opponent is a part of the most disrespected Congress this country has ever seen. It's time for new blood -- I am that new blood.
• I'm running to put an end to the endless war, the endless spending, and endless corruption. If you want an end to the madness that has taken over Washington, then give me and my party a chance to change the course.
  
• My opponent has said XYZ about me. Of course it's not true, but what do you expect from an administration that -- according to Bob Woodward -- is in a State of Denial?
• My Republican opponent says he shares your values. You should ask yourself... what values? The values of endless war? Or maybe the values of deepening debt? Or maybe the values of reduced privacy? Or maybe it's the values of oil companies?
  

Talking Points For Harold Ford, Jr.

Ford is being attacked with "dog whistle" race-baiting tactics by the Corker campaign. The Democratic response has essentially been "they must be desperate to release such attacks on Ford." This is fine and tactical, but it's purely political in nature. It doesn't address the moral incorrectness of the Republicans -- and it gives them an undeserved moral free pass. Prepare a more disruptive and effective response:

"Now that people have seen the Republican attack ads on TV, Tennesseans can now clearly see their choice in front of them: vote for a Republican candidate that talks about values yet is indecent and morally bankrupt... or vote for Harold Ford Jr., who represents a candidate who walks the walk and talks the talk of our American Values. If Harold Ford wins this race, his win represents a new hope for all Tennesseans. A Ford win means: no matter what your roots, you, too, can succeed in Tennessee. When Ford Wins, Tennesseans Win."

This approach subtly calls out Republican racism as moral corruption, transforms racism into hope, and turns an attack into a political asset.

Talking Points For Jim Webb

Beating George Allen should be easy. He made his bed -- you just have to show the voters where it is...

• George Allen is part of the problem in Washington.
• Voting for George Allen is like voting for George Bush.
• Endless war, endless debt, endless corruption. Endless problems, brought to you by Republicans like George Allen.
  
• This is not about George Allen's racism or heritage. This is about bringing a change to Washington.
  
• George Allen represents a blank check and rubber stamp for the endless mistakes of the Bush administration.
• George Allen is about the past. Jim Webb is about the future.
• George Allen is desperate to win. Do you really want to vote for a desperate Senator?
• George Allen: Nice enough guy, but wrong on just about everything.

The trick is to keep it simple, stay on the attack, and stick to proven topics that benefit Democrats this fall.

Democrats - The Party of American Values

Democrats,

Conventional wisdom dictates that Republicans appeal to the "values voters." And while this is a fallacy (everyone has values -- just some different from others), solving this problem is a long-term challenge. The good news is that, thanks to the Congressman Foley incident, voters are now being reminded that Republicans are just normal people who happen to be good at pretending to be morally superior just long enough to be elected. By pretending to be people they're not, it was just a matter of time before charges of hypocrisy tainted the Republican brand. In fact, Foley damaged the Republican's "family values" product much like Iraq has tarnished the Republican's "foreign policy" product. This makes the political environment even more primed for a Democratic upheaval this fall.

But there are two good reasons to continue to be aggressive and innovative in your messaging in the final weeks before the election:

1. Don't just win - win with a mandate
2. Use your lead to invest in the future of the party

To continue to invest in yourselves and your party's brand, take ownership of -- and pride in -- the values that you do represent. No, this is not "spinning" Republican values. And, no, this is not about trying to pretend you're Republicans by sounding like them. This is about the genuine portrayal of the unique and specific values that you, Democrats, bring to the table as representatives and as a party.

Communicating Democratic American Values

• The Rule of Law - Democrats promise to fight terror and corrupt ideologies by using our proud American history of abiding and respecting our laws and institutions
  
• Ethics - Democrats promise to put the teeth back into the Ethics Committee in Congress
  
• Governing Globally - Democrats will focus on getting the world back on our side
  
• Fiscal Conservatism - Democrats promise to reduce the debt by striking the right balance between streamlining government spending and closing tax loopholes
  
• Fix Iraq - Democrats will put an end to the faulty Republican-managed war, and begin a support & rebuild strategy. We don't need more war to fix Iraq. We need better solutions from a better party.
  
• Directly engage America's enemies - Democrats will press this administration to engage in direct dialogs with North Korea and Iran. To their face. In their face. Set ultimatums. For some reason, Republicans are apparently too scared to work with "evil" directly. And now it's costing us big-time.

Yes, these values are different than the values most people talk about in politics. Just because these are not so-called "family values" doesn't mean that they're not values. In other words, it's time to embrace-and-extend the "values" political tool to your advantage.

Democrats Have American Values - Now go tell voters about them.

Special Note: To be sure, there are even more Democratic values that can be communicated effectively to help communicate your party's value proposition. If you are running for office, and would like to bounce messaging ideas off of Our Karl Rove that might work in your specific region, please feel free to contact us directly for messaging support.

Does Merely Opposing Republicans Get You Down? Try on a Philosophical Framework for Size.

Democrats,

You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize that the entire Democratic party is lacking in certainty and clarity. The Democrats' raison d'être has wilted into a mere shadow of the principled party of the 1930s through the 1970s. And there's a good reason: the nation has moved on. Americans have become more confident, more independent, and more wealthy. As a result, many economic and political Democratic ideals that served this nation so well from the Great Depression until the 70s no longer resonate.

True, your opposition to Republican failures might just get you a majority this fall, but in the face of such utter governing chaos, there shouldn't be a single Republican left in Washington at this point. I assert that you will win new seats this fall not only because of Republican policy self-destruction, but also due to an implicit set of values and ideals about how Democrats think and how Democrats govern.

Democrats have a secret weapon that they've either forgotten about, or have been bullied into thinking it's not valuable. This secret weapon is the set of popular and time-tested American ideals and attributes that include respect for institutions, the rule of law, the art of governing globally, and the ideals of "debate then decide." These are incredibly valuable because our country has been blindsided by an opposing set of Republican values, which include breaking institutions, ignoring laws, challenging the Constitution of the United States, destroying global alliances and trust, and the ideals of "decide then deride."

Despite the Democrats' inability to get in touch with and communicate these mainstream and superior political assets, Americans can still see these values on display when they watch their favorite political comedy show on TV (Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, et al.) -- and viewers implicitly map these values to the Democratic party.

But here's where your problem starts, Democrats: You are also the audience. You go straight to Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and other spitball flingers to get your soundbites and philosophical steak'ums to help make your political points. No doubt, these entertainers are dead-on in their verbal assassinations of the folks running this country. And, no doubt, it feels good to be a part of the clevery. But these entertainers are not the philosophers or framers of the Democratic agenda. They do not work to link the Democratic party to our nation's proud history, and they don't portray Democrats as responsible stewards of governing excellence, complete with straight-talk, and forward thinking principles to ensure long-term health and stability of our nation domestically and abroad. Rather, they are more likely to take pot-shots at Democrats as well because, well, spitball flingers only have spitballs.

But someone out there in the media landscape does move the needle in Democratic advocacy -- and it's time for those of you in office and running for office to set your collective TiVo's to one Keith Olbermann. The anchor for MSNBC's Countdown (airing weekdays at 8PM EST) has found his voice, and it is arguably the strongest, historically grounded, solemn, formidable, and effective voice of reason on Cable TV.

In case you haven't seen him in action lately, please take the time to watch these video clips of his increasingly-frequent "special comments":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CfvWdiAaRM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc5EQp2phJU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnR6qDDVCSI

Keith's moral and philosophical clarity is not only refreshing, but convincing. Of course everyone should continue to enjoy The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time. Just don't misconstrue clever jabs and comedic outrages for a true principled framework from which to grow a purpose.

Postscript:
----------
In addition to Keith, I highly recommend you also read this article from the Economist: Helping America's Workers (The Democrats need to posture less and think harder) [subscription required]. If you are running for office, or already in office, it would be a wise investment to subscribe to this newspaper. The Economist provides compelling and relevant meaning to liberal principles in ways that are, in many ways, foreign to the American political paradigm. For instance, do you think it's impossible to support unbridled, free-market globalization and income redistribution in the same ideological framework? Well, not only is it possible, but the Economist argues that it a no-brainer, and is the moral thing to do. Start reading.

Running for Office? Then Keep Running.

Democrats running for office,

Much hoopla has been created in Democratic circles over a report that Republicans plan on getting personal in their campaigns this fall. Opposition research, finding character flaws, and even exaggerating facts to cast Democrats as bad alternatives...all in an effort to win their races.

The very fact that Democrats are shaken and/or surprised by such "news" -- and the very fact that this article needed to be written at all -- is an indicator that Democrats have not fully digested a very fundamental paradigm:

Running for office has precious little in common with being in office.

Yes, this seems very obvious when you read it. But, it appears that many Democrats to this day still believe that running a campaign is more akin to giving voters a "preview" of what they would do in office, rather than treating campaigns as a completely different process, with completely different goals and objectives. So at the risk of being rudimentary, I submit the following primer:

Running for office is a public relations exercise. Your primary goal is to be popular enough to get the most votes (and interesting enough to get people to actually come out and vote). That's it! If your positions on the issues help you become more popular with voters, great -- use your positions. But if you have a position is not going to be popular, then you need to shift your message to things that will be popular: your character, values, history, family, successes... whatever topics you can toss into the ring that will help you win more votes and get people excited about you representing them.

Being in office, on the other hand, is about communicating and setting policy and being clear about your positions, and how they link into your vision for your district/state/nation. While public relations plays a part in being in office, it is merely a component of the job. But the policy-related issues and strategies you'll be setting while in office are purely optional things to talk about when you're running for office. So carefully pick and choose the issues you choose to share with voters to ensure you are the most popular.

If we agree on this delineation, then it's clear that Republicans are generally more in touch with -- and fundamentally understand -- the political process. Because Republicans are no longer popular with voters, their top job in campaign mode is to shift the focus onto things that make them more popular than you. And exaggerations, white lies, and misleading information are part of the public relations process: unless there's a law against it, it's fair game.

So when you're attacked by your opponent, it is your responsibility as a candidate to diffuse and deflect any and all accusations (true or not) levied against you in such a way as not to reduce your popularity with voters. Then, immediately refocus the campaign back onto the things that will make you more popular... which right now would be your discontent with the Iraq War and, by extension, the entire Republican approach to governing.

This political season, the Iraq War does seem to be ground zero for popular discontent with voters. And, being the rugged Americans we are, we seemed to have dug our collective heels in on this issue, and have submitted our verdict: it's a flop. Represent this view in your campaign, and it's more likely that people will want you to represent them.