See option #2 above.

You may be right. But what he's doing does not represent progressive beliefs.

And, judging from your response, you don't believe what he's done is representative of conservative beliefs.

If this is the case, this is a big problem. Because people vote based on emotion and belief. Not on legislation. And in this category, he's pleasing no one.

I'm also saying that there's no evidence from the last election that shows it's the fault of a "progressive agenda". Because he's never followed a progressive agenda. Don't believe me? Ask a liberal or progressive.

-David

Isn't it possible that the majority of Americans are NOT responding to spin, but rather simply don't like what Obama is doing to the country???

Michale.....
113

I don't think this is exactly true. Not sure if you noticed, but this administration hasn't exactly acted on progressive beliefs.

I'd say it's acted on a lot of corporate beliefs and been about as centrist and compromising as can be.

Now Joe Six-Pack may not believe this because he's seen the media spin Obama as "liberal" and "socialist" and "communist" etc.

But that doesn't fit the facts on the ground. So either Joe is re-acting to:

1. The spin he hears, or
2. The corporate, Washington-as-usual compromises of Obama

Either way, he's not re-acting to a progressive agenda.

I think if Obama acted on progressive beliefs it would help him with his base and also help him gain respect with Independents.

At the very least, he has nothing to lose because no matter how moderate he tries to be, Republicans are going to spin him as a socialist.

-David

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

I find myself more and more sympathizing with WikiLeaks..

Michale.....
109

The question I'd ask is, Why do you need money to win elections? The answer, to get your message out. Maybe if they acted on their beliefs they'd have higher credibility and a better message and wouldn't need so much money :).

This assumes that Democrats acting on their beliefs would endear the Democratic Party to Joe Q Six-Pack.

There is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support such a assumption and there is PLENTY of evidence that disproves this assumption.

In the here and now, Joe Six-Pack has seen the result of the Democrats "beliefs"... And he doesn't like it much..

Michale.....
108

Well, I hate to say, 'I told ya so'..... :D

But even I have to admit that a 2 year extension is pretty dumb for the Democrats to agree to...

Gods help the Democrats if the extension actually DOES turn the economy around...

Michale.....
107

I think you make some good points about the messaging not matching the execution. It's like when the marketing doesn't match the product. Eventually word gets out and no one buys.

But this statement about W. isn't exactly true. Ask many conservatives.

W said he was for small government. Yet the government only grew under him.

W said he was going to be moderate. He was anything but.

In many respects, he did a lot of the same things Obama did. Said what the people wanted to hear during the election.

But Dubya was also in a different situation. His agenda was by and large supported by the wealthiest of our country - those backing the US Chamber of Commerce, for instance. So he didn't risk angering his largest donors.

Bush did anger many within the party though. And I believe some of this anger led to the Tea Party movement.

Chasing the money is why I believe Obama and Democrats in general always seems to be walking a fine line. The belief is that winning elections takes money. And who's got the most money?

Yet judging by the last election, many of these donors may have finally decided to put all of their eggs in one basket - the Republican basket.

Oddly enough, this might free Democrats to speak and act on their beliefs - rather than trying to play both sides of the fence (populist and monied).

The question I'd ask is, Why do you need money to win elections? The answer, to get your message out. Maybe if they acted on their beliefs they'd have higher credibility and a better message and wouldn't need so much money :).

Cheers
David

p.s. For any who are interested, this is the best post I've read yet about WikiLeaks:

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/

Very good point. My post about The Message was meant to mean "the message" insofar as what Democrats have actually done, not what they said they would do...

It's not that the American People don't like what Democrats say Democrats stand for.

The American People don't like what Democrats REALLY stand for.

It's not a "messaging" problem. It's a problem of execution.

And you are dead on ballz accurate about Bush. He said what he would do and he did what he said he would do.

That's why I think history will treat the Bush Administration a LOT better than what people here might think.

Much as Lincoln was castigated and attacked mercilessly in his time, he has now become known as one of our greatest Presidents. While I don't think that Bush will attain such stature as Lincoln, I am sure he will come a lot closer than people here believe.

I would love to give the Democratic Party advice on how to recover and regain their majorities and retain the White House.

I just don't see how it's possible.

The ONLY way Dems could do it is to convince the Indies and NPAs of this country that the Democratic Party way of is the best way for the country.

And THAT has about as much chance of happening as OInk, Cesca and Jamie asking me to be a featured blogger on their sites. :D

In other words, Slim and none and Slim just logged off.. :D

At this point, maybe aliens on the White House lawn wouldn't be such a bad thing. At least it'd be an interesting distraction. And maybe Sigourney Weaver or Will Smith would show up to lead the fight. I'd even take William Shatner, at this point.

Hay now!! Let's not be cappin' on a national hero!! :D

Michale.....

conservatives will say the president is too liberal, liberals will say he is too conservative, but at the end of the day the problem is that he has repeatedly said one thing and then done another.

I know ya'all would just love to hang your hat on this, but the facts simply do not support such a conclusion...

The problem is NOT messaging.. The problem is THE MESSAGE...

Sure, you can find an item here or an item there that the American Public supports.

But, over all, the Democratic Party Message consists of Big Intrusive Spend Crazy Government.

And the American people don't like that message.

And no amount of spin will change this one simple fact...

Michale......
105

Then we have the debacle of the Gulf oil spill;one did not need to be any kind of scientist to see that coming;yet our president allowed BP to fiddle while the coast got coated with oil.We still have troops in combat in South Asia;Gitmo is still open and festering;­not to mention an economy in the toilet.Mr.­Obama ran a brilliant campaign but it looks as if his No Drama persona plays right into the naysayers hands.I dare say we Dems are in big trouble if he does not get busy soon.The problem is worse because we are forced to hang on to Obama as there is no other Democrat of stature to challenge him in 2012.

What, you think the field will be clear on the Dem side in 2012?

Sorry ... couldn't resist. Heh.

Well, at this point, I have to say I'm buying into the rumors of an imminent cave from 1600 Penna. Ave. My only hope at this point is that Obama bargains for something unexpected when it is announced (DADT repeal? Unemp. bennies extended will not be enough to impress me, at this point).

But then, I could be wrong.

I do have to say, I like the sound of "First Annual" though...

:-)

Americulchie -

Yeah, Grayson gave a great interview recently, I can dig up the link if you haven't seen it. Lieberman actually won MIDOTW last week, and it was a surprise to us here, but on DADT, he's really been a good front man -- much better than lots of other Dems on other subjects, so I have to give the man credit where it is due (although it pains me to do so, I assure you... I haven't forgotten his performance last December...).

Liz -

If you thought the fray in 2008 on the Dem side was bad, just wait until you see the fracas in 2012 on the GOP side...

:-)

-CW

You know, with all of the guff Obama has been taking from the left - basically since day one of his administration, or there abouts - I have to wonder out loud why the Democrats didn't just anoint Biden when he announced his candidacy for the presidency circa 2005 ...

Frankly, being the politically naive imbecile that I am, I thought Biden was making a successful attempt to "clear the field" when he made his intentions known so early in the process. But, nooooo ... everyone and their brother ended up entering the fray on the Democratic side. :(

I'm having a hard time trying to wrap my mind around the concept that it is better to condemn the administration for something that it is rumoured it will do (cave on the Bush tax cuts) than it would be to encourage the president to stick to his guns (not to mention his treasury secretary), and refuse to allow the Republican's irresponsible nonsense surrounding these tax cuts to gain any traction.

That approach is at least worth a try, I should think.

I wish I could say that I have the will to resist looking at the HuffPost comments on this one because I know very well that they are going to give me a headache. On the bright side, it will be a prime opportunity to gather up support for the First Annual CW.com Holiday Fund Drive. :)