A lesson from Clinton -- It's amazing what a few details can accomplish

[Armstead]

One thing that Clinton's response on Faux News demonstrated.

It's amazing what can be accomplished by actually getting specific. It's a lesson our side needs to learn and get better at.

Aside from his obvious anger and passion, one reason his handling of Chris Wallace was so effective is that he actually got into details. He fired back with specifics, instead of shopworn cliches like "We would fight a smarter war on terrorism."

That raised the level of the debate, simiarly to the way John Murtha took the national debate over Iraq to a higher level by offering a specific alternative plan....I'm not talking about tedious wonk speak. But it's a way to break through the barrier on the level of "sound bytes" too.

Clinton actually mentioned the context of Black Hawk Down, for example. He actually mentioned things he did against terrorism. He spelled out the reasons he did not attack Afghanistan. And he actually mentioned the fact that he had passed along a plan to the Bush administration, which they ignored.

He also went directly after the media, and zeroed in on Fox for interrogating Democrats while going soft on Republicans.

Facts can bolster a rhetorical argument. There's a lesson there, that ought to be applied to many issues.

[ginnyinWI]

1. yes--we need more than slogans.

Slogans and generalities and spin are what the RWingers do.

[gully]

2. You laid out the obvious. Thank YOU!

You are exactly right. Not that we can't lay out specifics and toss in a cliche' but specifics are indeed necessary. And, CLINTON was the one who needed to defend himself on terror. I wish he'd done so years ago.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. You Are So Correct

It's amazing and surprising that the "Battlin' Congressional Dems" don't bring up specifics - such as how many more people have been killed in Iraq vs. how many Saddam would have killed had we kept out, and so forth.

Perhaps they feel that if they say something specific, they might get called on it, whereas nobody can argue with something proud and meaningless like "We would fight a smarter war on terrorism."

[blm]

4. Clinton didn't care about the fact that Bush failed at Tora Bora - he and

other Dems stayed conspicuously silent throughout 2002, 3, and 4 while Kerry, Cleland and Clark, were out there on their own trying to drum up public awareness for such an enormous failure.

Clinton didn't seem to care that using the facts to ANSWER the charges made against him post 9-11, would have taken the burden off all the Dem Candidates stuck running against the hardened public wisdom that "Dems are weak on terror" and "Clinton didn't do anything about terror" that Clinton ignored for FIVE YEARS.

Maybe Clinton WOULDN'T have exploded if he hadn't let it build up for so long and confronted the lies BEFORE they hardened.

[Armstead]

6. I agree that he should have done it sooner, but better late than never

I know from youer other posts on this how you feel, and I basically agree with you.

But what's done is done (or not done before), and I'm trying to take a forward look. If it took him (and otehr Democrats) this long to get pissed and fight back, than at least he (and maybe more other Democrats) can actually go on offense, instead of always having to play a defensive game.

Anyway, my original point here was that instead of tossing out generalities, when Democrats actually give red meat out in the form of actual information, it makes for a more effective message than just meaningless generalities.

[blm]

8. And HOW is detailed information analyzed when other Democrats use it?

Oh - they talk too much about details - they need an overall theme and message instead of trying to inform the public using details.

I've seen that exact line of attack used against ANY Democrat who comes up with detailed information or plans.

And I am going to KEEP posting the facts about Clinton and his timing in every thread that APPLAUDS him for his 5 yr late outburst only after 2 CRUCIAL ELECTIONS have already been held and Bush could have been held responsible SOONER.

[JohnWxy]

11. You have to really argue hard to get entertainment oriented interviewers

to let FACTS and details be heard. Also, of course most of the MSM personalities are jumping over each other to please the NEo-Fascist (euphemistically called Neo-Con) administration.

I wish the Dems would work harder on simply and clearly presenting the facts and insist on repeating them despite the media personalities allergic reaction to them. I really mean it. They should insist on repeating pertinent facts and say something like: "NOw it's important that the people hear the actual facts of the matter. I realize this isn't as entertaining as making me angry and this may not be the answer you were looking for but this interview SHOULD be for the benefit of the voters. Isn't that so, Katie, Brian, ...?"

Or when the interviewer run's over a Dem's answer with an abrupt new question they should say: "What's the matter, that wasnt' the right answer? Let me repeat so this can be heard because it's important, ..."


The Dems really should train themselves to handle a hostile interviewing technique. (because that's what they usually run into) Dont' get mad, but insist slowly and resolutely to get your point made.

[blm]

12. EXACTLY - and Dems need to give each other BACKUP instead of trying

to jockey for some political position.

Remember Tora Bora.

[Armstead]

15. Personally, I'd love to see the Democrats use a particular word on TV

"Bullshit."

As in,

Q: The Democrats seem weak, and haven't come up with any plan for how to deal with Iraq.

A:That's bullshit and you know it. Democrats have come up with many plans individually. Remember John Murtha? Ever heard Dennis Kucinich?

The problem is that people in the media like you ignore anything that doesn't come from the White House. You're too lazy to cover anything. So you pundits just listen to each other and repeat what each other says like an echo chamber.

...etc.

[wisteria]

5. Senator Kerry has been challenging and providing detail on major

issues for a long time- going back to 04. This is not new. When Kerry tried to explain positions and treat the public with respect, he was criticized for not putting things into a nice little package with a slogan. While I was happy to hear Clinton speak out and stand up to the Repubs, he isn't the first and he has allowed Repubs to define him in less than flattering ways over the years.

[Armstead]

7. Kerry is sort of the other extreme, IMO...It requires a balance

Maybe it's a matter of personality, but I think Kerry overdoes it, in terms of details.

Idealistically, it's obviously better to communicate real detailed information, and that should be parts of campaigns too.

But Kerry tends to be too much of a Hamlet in public, always wondering "To be or not to be?" instead of focusing on how to present his answers in a way that gets through the sound-byte fog.

(A classic example was when I saw him asked the simple question: Do you consider yourself a liberal? Instead of a straight "Yes, and here's why. We liberals believe in..." Kerry gave a torturous answer that started with "Well I don;t like labels. I suppose it depends on how you want to define what is liberal......")

The medium between soundbites and loing-winded wonk speak is what we need, IMO.

[wisteria]

10. Kerry has worked on his style since the election, he no longer

speaks in senate language. There was a time when Clinton was also criticized for his speaking style and he was called boring to listen to. I believe those comments came about after he spoke at Carter's convention.
Personally, I'm pretty much of a plain talker, and I don't think Kerry is of the other extreme. Have you listened to him lately?

[Armstead]

16. Kerry's my Senator and I appreciate his thoughtfulness...

I know his ability to see nuance and all sides of an issue would have made him a great president.

However, I'm referring to the specific world of "political speak." That's the public arena in which candidates and leaders and supporters try to make the sale to the public for votes and to win them over to policies. That's where people form their impressions, and -- unfortunately -- base their opinions on soundbites, speeches, punditry and other brief moments.

[Hissyspit]

9. kick

[calimary]

13. It's all in the details, which have never gotten any attention, what with

the way the deck's been stacked.

For your consideration...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2845972&mesg_id=2845972

[Armstead]

14. Great article...Thanks