NithinCoca.com

By all accounts, we are a nation in turmoil. We continue to fight an never ending war in Iraq, the housing crisis continues to spread throughout the financial markets, and the economy teeters on the edge of recession. To the observer, these are the greatest issues facing America in 2008. Yet, if you listen to the Republicans debate, its as if these issues don’t existIgnoring the obvious, they ramp up the rhetoric on an different issue, a new scapegoat for all the ills of society. A diversion from the last eight years of failure.

Immigration.

We on the left could dismiss immigration easily. America has greater concerns, and on the issues that matter now, Democrats win, hands down. But when was the last time Republicans ever won on the top issues of the day? Recent election history shows that re-framing the debate through wedge issues has been a winning formula. How many people decided between “you know where I stand” Bush and “flip-flop” Kerry last election on baseless Republican rhetoric? What matters most to America as a whole and what matters Americans at the polls are not the same.

The most contentious moment of the recent CNN/YouTube debate was during the introductory half hour spent solely on Immigration, in which almost every candidate got a say. But Immigration is not only about the 12 million undocumented, but has recently become, to Republicans, the most important issue of national security. Representative Tom Tancredo tied Islamic Terrorism with unsecured borders. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani debated whether or not educational and health benefits should go to the children of undocumented workers. Mitt Romney railed against sanctuary cities.

One argument goes like this: Immigration didn’t work for Republicans in 2006, it didn’t work in 2007, why will it work in 2008?
Yet when CNN spends more time in a debate discussing Mitt Romney’s yardworkers than the greatest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, I begin to see images of Willie Horton, of Gay Marriages in San Francisco, of a little girl plucking a flower. As I watch John McCain declare the surge a success and watch Lou Dobbs declare a jihad on Mexicans, I wonder what we’ll be talking about in October 2008.

The Republicans are once again beginning to define the debate, and when they define the debate, we lose. From furloughs, to gay marriage to Immigration. Driver’s Licenses, Hillary Clinton’s most damaging moment in the election. The ugly whisper campaign about Barack Obama’s religion and his father. Are these merely a taste of what is to come? And how do we reclaim the debate, and talk about things that matter to Americans - ending the War, Health Care, and the economy.

What do you think?

Crossposted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I just discovered a unique candidate test that you can take at Glassbooth.org. Unlike other tests, which solely test you on issue based question, this one also takes into account what issues matter to you the most. For me, it was the Environment, Economic Policy, and the War in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Dennis Kucinich was #1, followed by John Edwards. Barack? #4

Barack Obama shares a 75% similarity with your beliefs.

However, it never asked me who I believe would help us transcend our differences and bring America together like no other. That, my friend, is Barack Obama.

Take the test yourself, and post in the comments how you do.

This is the first in a 3 part series where I examine the rhetorical styles in the various speeches of the three main Democratic Candidates for President. First up, the frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

This is an academic experiment. In College (at the best school in the world), I studied rhetoric in political speech, and how the different types of appeals, whether they be emotional, logical, or credibility building, help influence the persuasive and idealogical power of speech.

Hillary Clinton
Clinton speeches are heavy in ethos, that is, source credibility. Clinton reinforces her personal strengths, namely, her long resume of experience and her ability to be President on day one. She has been running on experience and one of her main themes as been that she is “ready to lead.” For example, the following line is present in almost every Clinton speech.

Change, change is just a word if you do not have the strength and experience to make it happen. We must nominate a nominee who has been tested, and elect a president who is ready to lead on day one…Fortunately, I have a little experience standing up and fighting for what I believe is right and what I think America needs and how we can get there together.

On the other hand, as a logical argument her speeches are definitely lacking. Look at her transcripts and see if you can find the governing, central argument and a coherent beginning, middle, and end. Though the central theme is her experience and ability, the speech does not lead to a conclusion that strengthens her argument any more than the introduction does. In a way, it is a series of points and red meat that reinforces that single idea but does not build a coherent argument. However, this does not terribly weaken her rhetorical aims.

It is with pathos, emotional appeals, that Clinton make half-hearted attempts and fails to truly engage the audience effectively. Invisibility is a narrative theme that is common her speeches, for example, this line from the JJ speech.

This election is about those Iowans and those Americans who feel invisible in their own country; who feel invisible to their own president. This election is about the woman I met in LeClair. She and her husband both work really hard, but they had to sell half the family farm to pay their medical expenses.

Clinton then goes on to mention three more examples of Invisibility, but all of the examples follow the same, single sentence, nameless face formula. Quantity does not equal quality here, these repeated, weak narratives do not give her speeches much of an emotional punch, not do they provide any avenue for voters to feel a connection to those she speaks of. Better use of emotional narratives would help her soften her image and connect better with undecided voters.

In conclusion, we all know that Hillary Clinton is not a naturally gifted speaker, and therefore, she is using her speeches to underscore her strengths and look, above all, Presidential. This strategy works well for a front runner, since the main goal of her speeches are to reinforce voter’s opinions on her, and her strengths. In modern political speech, emotional appeals engage audiences, while logical appeals are arguments that should answer the basic stump speech question in a well rounded way - why should you vote for me and not for them?

Clinton’s speeches, in contrast, answer this question - “Why I am the frontrunner, and why I will be the next President.” And so far, this persuasive style is working to her advantage.

Crossposted at Daily Kos

I’ve upgraded to a new server (hosted with Thinkhost, Green web hosting), and redesigned the site, and know I can have some ads up, even! The redesign isn’t complete, and everything hasn’t yet been imported from the old site (still visibible here), but progress is going well.

Some random info

Blog software - wordpress.org

Email Host - Google Apps

It’s common in Iowa circles that, one reason Kerry won the Iowa caucuses was his showing at the Iowa State Democratic Party’s Jefferson Jackson Dinner in 2003, which spearheaded him to the caucus victory over frontrunners

Nowhere is that more well known that with the Obama camp, which has been organizing for the JJ dinner for months, and yesterday, their work paid off. From David Yepsen at the Des Moines Register.

Obama was particularly impressive Saturday night. Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign in here, a point where he laid down the marker and began closing on Clinton, the national frontrunner.

I was there last night with my parents, who had never seen any Presidential candidates or any politicians even before, in their entire lives. As of today, they’re behind Barack. The atmopshere was amazing, the campaign ran out of t-shirts because so many people showed up at the pre-rally, followed by a march to the arena, where 5,000 people swamped the Veterans Memorial Auditorium.

Inside, it felt like half the arena was Barack supporters, who also happened to have the best sections, in the center. In actuality, it was about 3,000 of 9,000 in the balcony and the floor. Hillary’s supporters were stuck on far side of the arena, near the edges of the sideways U, Edwards was in one of the corners, and between Obama and Hillary. Dodd in the far upper corner, hidden in the shade. Biden had it worse, stuck with a tiny section on the edge of Hillary’s section.

In the Obama section, every two rows had a seat captain, who handed out different signs throughout the evening, gave out water, and led chants and cheers, but only during appropriate times. During the other candidates speeches, the Obama section was respectfully quiet, even clapping during John Edwards fantastic speech when he spoke about ending the lobbyists control of Washington.

When Barack was introduced, Nancy Pelosi had to wait for the cheers to subside, and for the first time all evening, the arena seemed full. The circular “O” signs were being waved throughout the arena, and Barack gave a speech with lines reminscent of his famous DNC convention speech, a starkly contrasting message from the red meat and partisan bashing that all the other candidates brought out. A message of unity, of reconciliation, and of moving to the future.

But the real congratulations goes to the campaign staff. If they can turn 5,000 people on a dreary Saturday to march in downtown Des Moines, bring 3,000 people from all 99 Iowa counties to sit for 5 to 6 hours in a old, badly lit arena, then just imagine how many people they will turn out on caucus night. Organization wins the caucuses, and last night, Barack Obama’s organization won the JJ dinner, hands down.

More on the Jefferson Jackson Dinner

See Barack’s entire speech here.

Scenes from Jefferson-Jackson, NYT

Obama Shines in Iowa - The New Republic

Crossposted on DailyKos

Courtesy MyDD

I think its quite good, though the music may be a little loud. The visuals are excellent, especially the photo of a younger Fred with the Republican savior, Ronald Reagan. Kinda reminds me of the famous young Bill Clinton with John Kennedy, that most memorable of photos from the 1992 election. I imagine we’ll be seeing a lot more of this photo.If Fred keeps producing great ads like this, he might just be able to finish ahead of Guiliani in Iowa, and perhaps win South Carolina and the nomination. However, whether or not he is a savoir like Reagan is yet to be seen.