Obama's Biggest Mistake...The Message

[Steely_Dan]

There are endless threads about what our president has and has not accomplished. I think both sides have legitimate arguments. For example, Obama has accomplished a great deal that his critics seem to ignore or are not aware of. On the other hand, Obama (in my opinion) has not met so many of my (or others) expectations in a wide variety of areas. I suppose we could argue both sides endlessly.

However, there is one thing that I honestly believe that our president has not done well and it is very frustrating for me. Tell me if you agree.

The message (in many ways) is more important than reality. I am convinced that President Obama has allowed the opposition to define the arguments, to control the message. There were so many opportunities for the President to get the right message out there and did not. Controlling the message is so critical, especially in the beginning. For a short period of time in the beginning, there was an opportunity to set the tenor for the Obama Administration. This opportunity was missed.

The result of not controlling the message and allowing the Right to do so, has resulted in such things as "Obama is Socialist" and "Obama is a far left liberal." We all know that this is not true. Yet, that is the message and it has lead people to believe that Obama is a one term president.

I am a progressive (according to the new definition) and I am not pleased with Obama's first year. Yet I am painfully aware that he inherited the worst possible conditions that we can imagine. I try to be patient knowing that NO president could have turned things around immediately. Having said that, not to see even a single step towards real change (in some areas) is frustrating to me.

No matter our feelings concerning if President Obama has fulfilled our individual expectations, surely the fact that he (and/or his staff) did not grab the "message" in the beginning is troubling and MAY indicate a lack of understanding of this important aspect of the political animal.

-P

[jenmito]

1. It's not his mistake-he SAYS things and repeats them against the Repubs., but the media

doesn't give HIS comments NEARLY the amount of coverage that they give the Repubs.

[Steely_Dan]

3. You May Be Right...

...and the media does play a role. However, I am convinced that the RIGHT message would have gotten through. Maybe I'm wrong.

-P

[tekisui]

14. All politicians work within the parameters of the media.

You are right, the right message could have gotten through the media fuzz. In fact, the right message can control the media, making the media work for the President.

He is in the unique position of being able to command the media's attention.

[hay rick]

91. Our mass media are shills for corporate America.

They are not journalists in any meaningful sense. I disagree with much of what Obama has done to date but I think the "bully pulpit" power of the presidency is vastly overrated in America ca. 2010.

[phleshdef]

2. I think he has somewhat underestimated how important message control is for sure.

I admire that he worries more about the progress than the politics, but we have to do both, thats just the nature of the country.

[louis-t]

4. This morning on CNN, a 'reporter' claimed that Obama

has "refused" to "secure" the border with Mexico. They did not show video of him saying he "refused". They did not have any supporting information, facts, logic, hearsay, or documentation. They just 'reported' what someone told them to say.

[Steely_Dan]

5. The Media Again...

Yes...they perhaps play a bigger role than I am giving them. However, shouldn't the Administration call them on it. Or is that unrealistic?

-P

[Raine1967]

59. HE does do that more oft than people realize...

But it's a dangerous line to walk on. I don;t know if I want him to attack the 'supposed' free press. (it's not really free, as it is mostly corporate owned)

When he does call the media on the carpet --- they scream that he is being a bully.

[sandnsea]

10. Even after Kyl took back that statement n/t

[xchrom]

6. Isn't that the same complaint we've had about dems since Reagan? Nt

[mopinko]

11. jimmy carter np

[Enrique]

7. at times he's giving THEIR message

for example when as Krugman just pointed out the WH is repeating the conservative talking points against stimulus spending.

[sandnsea]

8. lol, you're helping the opposition

The message doesn't travel if there isn't any echo.

Keep being the echo for the opposition, and see which message travels furthest.

Obama is a failure is the absolute best message they could have.

[Steely_Dan]

12. Did I say he was a failure?

Why would you say that? So, you find any criticism of the President unacceptable?

-P

[sandnsea]

17. Why yes, yes you did

our president has not done well

Obama is a one term president.

I am not pleased with Obama's first year.


Criticize every hour of every day. But don't wonder why you never hear anything good about this administration while you do it.

[Steely_Dan]

24. So...

Can you answer my question? Here it is again.

So, do you believe that any criticism of the president is unacceptable?

-P

[sandnsea]

28. I just said to criticize all you want

Just don't be surprised at the results you get, that's all.

[w4rma]

13. Then Obama better say something that the base is willing to echo.

Rather than implementing DLC policies and pissing off the base which then attacks Obama, instead of repeating Obama's words.

[sandnsea]

21. Keep attacking him then

Hope you like the results that brings you.

[tekisui]

30. Are you prepping to blame election losses on criticisms on a discussion board?

[sandnsea]

34. I assume you speak in real life too

I know the Dems in my local town too and most of them are nutty lefties too which is why we always end up with Republicans in office at the local level.

[tekisui]

42. Nutty lefties?

Is it possible for you to discuss issues without making it personal?

If you can't, I have no interest in talking further to you.

[sandnsea]

45. Oh excuse me, the extreme left, better? n/t

[tekisui]

49. I am going to put you on ignore.

You refuse to discuss issues, choosing to make it about the person. The sad thing is you don't realize that it only causing people to oppose you more. You don't convince people of your position by making it about them. Good luck.

[sandnsea]

54. This thread isn't about any issue

That's the whole joke.

[w4rma]

87. Sounds like you might be projecting. I bet you are unable to hold a conversation with them

with that attitude.

[Mimosa]

92. 'Nutty Lefties'?

I doubt most Dems are nutty lefties.

What many of us want are elected representatives who will work for us. Instead it seems like many get in office and start colecting the dough and enjoying the privileges.

[impik]

39. Once again you take ownership on "the base". How progressively arrogant

[w4rma]

89. My observation is correct, whether or not you like the observation or the messenger. (nt)

[firedupdem]

43. Don't think you are the 'base'

Trust me...the base never mentions "DLC" and the base realizes the president isn't a dictator and has no magic wand to wave.

[w4rma]

88. The DLC supports Wall Street. The 'base' is pissed off at pro-Wall Street policies.

Obama needs to quit listening to the DLC who are simply Wall Street toadies.

[tekisui]

15. Are we supposed to ignore what isn't working?

This kind of reasonable post, critical thought and following conversation is what can lead to improvements.

[sandnsea]

19. There was absolutely nothing in that OP

Whining about "Obama is a socialist" message when the only message you want to send is "Obama is a corporatist sell-out".

[tekisui]

22. Don't tell me what message I want to send out.

The OP is not about me. I have zero impact on any national messaging of Obama. The point of the OP is that the Administration has not controlled the message. They haven't owned the frame. The first and most obvious example was when they completely lost the framing on Health Care Reform. They played defensive for months and that was a part of why it got so watered down. They lost the frame and the momentum. Each passing week made it less likely that it would pass. Then it was weakened for support.

They haven't done a good job on message control and framing. On the whole they have been much more reactive and defensive.

[sandnsea]

33. They have passed what they wanted to pass

They have controlled the message, it's just not the message you or the OP want to hear. It is, however, the message the majority of Americans want to hear which is why people are happier with the health care bill the more they hear about it.

[tekisui]

40. If they were better at controlling the message, they wouldn't have to

be convincing people that they should like the health care bill.

Better messaging would have brought the people from the beginning, and would have resulted in stronger reforms.

Again, do not tell me what I want to hear.

[sandnsea]

51. Convincing people is controlling the message

They sent the message of health care reform, the majority of people approved, and more people approve as they continue to control the message. Or convince people. Whichever term you prefer.

If they'd had assistance with controlling the message from the day Ted Kennedy's bill was released, we would have the strong reforms in that bill. Instead, it was attacked by those who should have been helping control the message.

Learn or not, your choice.

[w4rma]

90. Maybe they shouldn't have fired or disassociated themselves with many of the progressives

who helped them win the White House? Nope. Obama hired Rahm and caved to the DLC who wanted progressives -- and non-corporatist moderates -- out of the White House.

Whose dumb idea was it to hire Tim Kaine for the DNC anyway? Because of that move, we politicized Kaine as being farther left than he really is and we lost all the top seats in Virginia.

[Mimosa]

94. They wanted to pass that mess which helped big insurance not people?

Are you serious? please explain.

[treestar]

18. Amen! If the message is more important than reality, then why

not help him with the message? Rather than helping the Republicans.

[housewolf]

9. I completely agree w ith you

Obama has yet to find a way to communicate with the public in a way that resonates positively throughout the populus. He hasn't found a way to say "hey, come on, we're going to 'whatever', come join with me in this grand adventure and we'll achieve 'whatever', and here's why you should be part of this." I think that's what "the people" and especially "the media" are looking for and are frustrated by.

[treestar]

16. We heard all this during the election too

The message is more important than reality? :shrug:

Reality always intrudes.

[Steely_Dan]

20. I Wish It Weren't So...

For whatever reason, "reality" often takes a backseat to appearances. It's a game...you have to play the game. The electorate often does not recognize what is real. They believe the message. I wish it weren't so.

[tekisui]

25. How you frame the reality is most important in politics.

They who own the frame, own the message and the power. The Administration needs to own the frame, not react to the repukes frame.

[izquierdista]

23. I'll agree with you

Obama has not conquered the new media as FDR did. In FDR's case, it was radio and the fireside chat did a good job of getting around the MSM of the day, conservative newspaper editors. I have watched some of Obama's addresses on YouTube, the new media of this era, and it just hasn't had the impact. It has not pushed aside cable news (well, maybe it has among the 20somethings, but the old farts are still glued to cable news).

Another thing that has shown him to be lacking are his appointments: Geithner, Salazar, Vilsack, Gates. Those are the kind of appointments that guarantee the status quo, not "change you can believe in".

[Steely_Dan]

27. I'll Agree About FDR...

He was masterful at "framing" the issues and presenting them with optimism and hope.

-P

[ProSense]

26. "The message (in many ways) is more important than reality. "

It doesn't help when some people who you would think should be among the President's supporters are dismissing the administration's message as propaganda and lies.

We are in an age where the Internet has magnified the RW message, which is also coming from the media online entities.

Instead of capitalizing on the Internet to effectively counter RW spin, there is an industry on the left doing everything to distort the the President's message.

It doesn't matter that only the RW is claiming that Obama is a socialist. When the message from the right and left is that Obama is propping up Wall Street, whatever message the administration is advancing is drowned out.

For example, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann and Bob Herbert (yes, one is a commedian) are champions on the left, but they are heard/read by Americans of all political stripes. When their message is that Obama is selling out to Wall Street, and it's the pundits message, whether on MSNBC or CNN, that lessens the chance that the administration's message is going to resonate with skeptics.

It cannot resonate, no matter how often the President says otherwise, when everyone seems to be in agreement that he's selling out to Wall Street.

Of course, no one is advocating that any of the above commentators adhere to the President's message, but again, when they sound just like the pundits, the message gets lost. There is no 24/7 WH channel.

The same thing happened to Kerry and the Swift Liars, he responded and responded, but the media barrage and the ineffectiveness of pundits on the left made it impossible for Kerry's message to resonate.

It's only in hindsight that people acknowledge these things. It's the NYT pushing Iraq against the war protests, and then apologizing It's the NYT dropping the word "torture" to describe Bush's policy in the name of being fair and balanced, and then apologizing.

You say it's the message. I don't agree. The message is spot on. Now, I'm sure there will be those who will agree that it's not the message because they agree with those who claim the President is selling out to Wall Street.




Edited for missing word.

[Steely_Dan]

29. Thanks...Something for me to consider n/t

[tekisui]

31. Criticisms from the left are not the problem.

The problem is the Administration has been ineffective in controlling the frame. They should be able to maintain the frame, the parameters and language of the debate, in spite of the media.

[ProSense]

32. That is what you take away from my comment?

This is the typical rebuttal that completely ignores the context.

"The problem is the Administration has been ineffective in controlling the frame."

An explanation for why that maybe the case was offered, but you chose to ignore it for a cliche response.

[tekisui]

38. Your comments were largely about

the internet magnifying RW talking points and that the left-media has hurt more than helped. What I am saying is that is an admission that the frame has been lost time and again.

If they were controlling the frame, this messaging through the media would reflect that. We are in agreement that the message is not being heard. We can disagree on the reason. You essentially blame the left-leaning media sources for not delivering the message, or for working against the Administration's message.

What I am saying, is it is the responsibility of the Administration and the Party to control the frame. It is up to them to set the parameters for debate. It is up to them to create a frame that, when reported, would not hurt them. One that would leave little room for attacks from the right.

You don't get to choose the media to work within. You do get to choose your messaging. The Administration has been ineffective in that regard.

I didn't ignore your explanation. I disagreed with it.

[Steely_Dan]

41. So Well Put...

...wish I had said it myself.

[ProSense]

44. "What I am saying is that is an admission that the frame has been lost time and again." Question:

Do you believe the administration is selling out to Wall Street?

[tekisui]

46. Why has the Administration allowed that to be the subject of debate?

Better framing on what they have done, and better policies, would prevent that from being the arena of debate.

[ProSense]

48. I asked if you believed it. n/t

[tekisui]

50. What does it matter what I believe?

Why has that frame of debate been allowed so much that you are asking me that question?

[ProSense]

52. Why do you refuse to answer the question? n/t

[tekisui]

57. Why do you keep asking it?

Are you Joe McCarthy?

[ProSense]

58. Asking a simple question makes one "Joe McCarthy"? n/t

[tekisui]

61. It is insulting and odd that you repeatedly asked it,

what 4 or 5 times? It has nothing to do with this thread.

It seemed rather witch-hunty to me, and quite entertaining.

I do not accept the frame. It is a stupid question.

[ProSense]

63. No, you just don't want to answer it. n/t

[tekisui]

64. Jeezus

fuckin christ. No, I don't think he is a sell-out to wall street. I also know if I did think that I wouldn't write it on DU, it is against the rules, I think.

You may now go about your regular business and relieve yourself of obsessing over my beliefs.

[Forkboy]

95. That's funny hearing you say that after you've dodged so many questions yourself here.

I remember asking you a question repeatedly that you refused to answer. I've watched you do the same with others. Now all of sudden, you think you've got a good gotcha moment going and answers are suddenly crucial.

Funny shit. And totally bookmarked.

[apocalypsehow]

96. Funny thing about that, eh? I've run into the exact same dodge: a simple question is asked, but

the poster does not dare answer it, knowing it will push them into territory that they don't wish to be known for.

So they dodge. They equivocate. They accuse you of "McCarthyism." They play the "tu quoque" game (as seen down-thread by one of the poster's defenders).

They do everything but answer the fucking question.

Very telling, that.

I give you kudos for continuing to ask the question, despite all the fluff & flak you're getting in an attempt to avoid it. :thumbsup:

[tekisui]

97. Forget it.

You aren't worth it.

[ProSense]

55. Let me answer yours: "Why has that frame of debate been allowed "

Allowed? Do you really believe the WH allowed that framing when everything they have said countered it?

Now, do you believe the President is selling out to Wall Street?

[ProSense]

47. "If they were controlling the frame, this messaging through the media would reflect that."

Really, the media has no agenda? Fox Noise and Morning Joe would be singing the admnistration's praise?

[Steely_Dan]

53. Probably not...

However, over time, when the "people" are convinced, it must have some impact over the slant of the news. But then...maybe not.

[tekisui]

56. Of course not. But the media is painfully predictable.

And the Administration is in the position, the only people in the country, to actually influence what the topic of conversation is.

Fox and other right-wing news outlets are completely predictable. They will oppose everything the Administration does or says. THe Administration needs to build a frame in such a way that the inevitable criticism from the right will not appeal to most people. And, bring the American people on board early.

More leadership, less facilitating. The right gets to much respect in the Administration.

[ProSense]

60. "Fox and other right-wing news outlets are completely predictable...

They will oppose everything the Administration does or says."

But that's not just true of the RW.

"The right gets to much respect in the Administration."

[treestar]

74. this was said all through the election and Obama won anyway

The idealists suddenly being so practical. But at bottom we see all they want is for the voters to be sheep they can manipulate and have power over; whether that comes from the left or the right; that's the only point you are making. The voters can't deal with reality; all we have to do is find the right "message" to manipulate them with. Make it emotional, too.

[izquierdista]

36. Who ya gonna believe?

The President, or your own lying eyes and ears?

[politicasista]

81. Yet people still believe he did nothing except windsurf

Some (not all) of them are/were candidate Obama supporters. Just saying.


OTOH, do agree about Obama and the media. He is speaking about them, but the MSM is ignoring him and the message.

[Steely_Dan]

35. I Find It Interesting...

...that Obama's oratory ability during the campaign was so inspiring that I honestly believe that people thought that they heard things he stated he would do that he never said. Of course, this does not mean that there are some things he DID say that have yet to come to fruition. My point is that it proves the power of great oratory. This combined with our desire to "believe" might have skewed our own interpretation of what he said. This is why you hear people saying "He didn't say that." Progressives and regular Dems heard the same campaign speech but took different messages away from it.

-P

[impik]

37. "The message is more important than reality"

The president probably think that reality is more important. Therefore, i assume he doesn't stand a chance.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Obama's biggest mistake.......?

Overestimating that the American people were patient,
and were gonna actually help instead of hinder him.
He also overestimated the media of actually being
interested in policies, when all they are interested in
is playing politics.

[Steely_Dan]

65. Look Frenchie....

...all I am saying is that the Administration could have done a better job at controlling the message.

-P

[FrenchieCat]

71. How do we know?

Did you know that Teabaggers were gonna get a starring role in the health Care debate?

I didn't.

A poster said that the Media is predictable, and I find that laughable, because to the contrary,
they are anything but.

Did we know that the media was gonna try to push the impeachment of a sitting President for not being truthful about a blow job for months on end?

Did we know that the media was gonna help George Bush steal the election, and help by replaying the "We have counted, and recounted, and counted again the votes" Republican talking points for the entire duration of the 2000 recount period?

Did we know that the media was gonna help the last administration take us to war with a country who didn't attack us, by reporting lies knowingly and gloriously call it Shock and Awe to have folks bombed on, and then when another administration comes in, they start his term with questioning the very reason for the war in Afghanistan?

Did we know that the media would report that deficits don't matter during Bush's term, but now, all of the sudden, they are all that matters?

Did we know that the media was going to be on the side of banks badmouthing banking regulations now, when they were showing all of the Teaparty folks with their signs against Bailouts then?

Did we know that the media wouldn't ever point out the hypocrisis of those in the Gulf States crying about their way of life being destroyed while neglecting to ponder why some of the same people still favor Deep Sea Oil Drilling?

We may think we know, but I don't think we really do.

Messaging is a strange thing; sometimes folks simply ignore the message and come up with their own.
I think the media has done that, and I think a lot of folks are falling for it.

What I do know is that back during the Bush terms, when unemployment went down by .2, that was good news. Now, we can go from 9.7 down to 9.5, and folks are crying about a double dip recession on my television. Of course, they talk about "some are suggesting that another targeted small stimulus might be needed"....but as soon as that is proposed, they will be bad mouthing that too.

It is my opinion that the media controls all messages.....and in fact, to a great degree, the media controls the politicians too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts3004

During campaigns, due to the exposures of the candidate, the media's role becomes less prevalent.....but after the campaign, most only see of the President what the media decides should be seen....and the media only tout what they decide should be touted. That's why there is silence on a whole lot of issues,
whether electric cars being pushed by this administration,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x353770

or what is happening with the climate bill http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024499.php#1792422
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/breath_fresh_air.html

or what is exactly happening with healthcare reform now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x23465


or Gates proposal to cut 100 billion from the defense budget.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/28/879373/-BIG:-Gates-calls-for-100-billion-in-cuts-to-Defense-Budget

The Media decides, then it reports.

a small example beyond those given...today, I watched MSNBC for a moment, and they were talking about how taxpayers money gets spent in a second, a minute, ten minutes, etc....
Whomever the anchor was referred to government spending as ......."Your money going down the rabbithole". Yep...that was the term for when the Obama administration spends money. period.
So what was that message about, and who was it for? and how do you suggest that the administration
get their voice heard, when the media is sticking their fingers in their ears, no wanting to hear anything....cause they've got their agenda set already. Right now, they are making sure that Bush's tax cuts are not allowed to expire; and for that moment their message will be "fuck deficits".

I've been analysing the media for a long time, and I'll tell you this; they collude with each other...and they have a gigantic microphone, and no time constraints in repeating for however long it takes for whatever it is they need enough of us to end up believing.

[Steely_Dan]

72. All Of Your Points...

...are valid. I will go through the links later.

-P

[FrenchieCat]

73. Just look at the news......

and that will tell you whose message we get to hear,
and I can bet you real money that it ain't the President's,
nor his party's....unless it is a story about Democrats
going against this President.....see, for the media....now that's real news!

See here.....today:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x367398

[RBInMaine]

67. Good points. The Great Depression lasted 12 years. FDR was given TIME. Today, people want instant

results. They need to get real.

[ClassWarrior]

70. We all want the world to be how we want the world to be. The trick...

...is to see it for how it really is, and adjust our actions -- and message -- to fit that.

NGU.

[RBInMaine]

66. I agree up to a point, but you also must remember that we have MUCH more change than we would have

had otherwise. On messaging, Dems tend not to do as well UNITING on narrative messaging, and messaging that must be EMOTIONALLY based. That is why, right now in Maine, we have begun attacking the GOP here as the out-of-whack whackos that they are. THIS must be the message of November: "Dems did not cause the mess, but WE are the ones trying to clean it up. The GOP has jumped off the right wing side of the deep end, and they want to take us back to ultra-trickle-down, ultra-deregulation, cut-and-gut budgeting, and 18th century social policies. WE WON'T LET THAT HAPPPEN."

[Steely_Dan]

68. Here! Here!

There, there...where, where!

-Firesign Theater

[ClassWarrior]

69. The left denies the importance of messaging at its own peril.

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

75. I don't know if anyone is arguing that messaging is important....

I think the real issue is how to get that message out,
when the electronic media has already decided that their
message takes precedence.....and in my estimation, they
hold the most powerful microphone; yes, more powerful than
the one the President is holding....because if you didn't realize today,
they don't televise what they don't want to!

[ClassWarrior]

80. All you say is true, but there are still things that he could be doing better.

I honestly don't understand why you seem to resist all calls for him to do better. Don't you want him to be the best that he can be?

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

82. There are a lot of things that he could be doing better,

but the OP is a read on his "Biggest Mistake" being messaging....
so I guess that I tend to want to put perspective on what
others are criticizing as opposed to piling-on, just cause I can.

[ProSense]

76. Now that I think about it, the administration has also been criticized for controlling the message

"Happy talk"

"Historic health care reform"

When Rachel Maddow did her piece on the historical significance of financial reform, some claimed the WH had gotten to her.

[mcollins]

77. Man...I just read through all the new forum rules.

Good thing too. I might have gotten into trouble.

[dionysus]

78. messaging is a legitimate issue, yes.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

79. The pukes should have been squashed the minute Jan. 21th '09

came around. They were at their weakest and they've been allowed to come back like the shitty horror movie characters they are.

[Steely_Dan]

83. Actually...

...you make a great point that I should have emphasized in the original OP. I dare say that the Tea Baggers might not have gotten a foothold or some of the crazier statements concerning our fine president might have never reared its ugly head had the Administration grabbed the RW by the throat for all its worth. Just a thought.

-P

[FrenchieCat]

84. The Teabaggers were destined to have gotten a foothold.

The Administration never had any control about how much exposure the Teabaggers got days in, days out; the Media did. Ask the media why they kept showing the same three folks at different Townhalls over and over and over again. Why do you think crowds were constantly totally overstated at these rallies, and Fox got into the game so early? And what happened when the Administration called Fox out? The rest of the media jumped down the Administration's throat, that's what. And even if you might not believe it, the media can make you or break you, no matter who you are (see Palin).

I hope that you never have to go up against a collective well established totally organized and seen by millions media......and happen to be a politician. Ask Carter, Clinton, Gore and Kerry about this, and they will gladly tell you....in ain't about the message; it's about the strength and size of the messenger. Even a President, top notch politician or totally famous athlete can't compete....

They decide, and then, they report, and then enough believe. That's how it works in these United States, and to forget is not something any of us should try to do.

[grahamhgreen]

85. Obam has not presented the vision of an America without homelessness, where everyone has healthcare,

where we move beyond war and rendition and torture, where wealth is not acquired through theft, etc.

[Mimosa]

93. EXACTLY. We keep hearing a nicer version of the SOSDD. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

86. If they dont figure this out by November, I'm going to worry....

.... I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in that, knowing that we live in a 24 hour news cycle, they dont NEED to control the message until just before the mid-terms ... if they cant get the show on the road I'll be worried ... not for the President, he'll be fine ... but for the party.

Fortunately, if Biden's recent comments are any indication, I dont think I'll have to worry much longer.