the White House hosts weekly message calls sharing their talking points with pundits who appear on television. The meetings are sometimes hosted in person at the White House.
…
“It’s a smart thing for the administration to do - bringing in Democratic pundits so they know what the message the White House is pushing,” the source said.The source said attending the meeting does not equal parroting the White House’s talking points, but said they are helpful to have a sense of where the administration stands on key issues.
Why shocking? Because I would never have believed the White House was hosting communication meetings — their message doesn’t seem to be getting out in the least. If pundits have Obama’s message, why do I only ever hear Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann’s message?
This is completely typical for Democratic administrations, of course. Liberals have been losing the message war now for 3 decades. But I had hoped things would be different under an Obama administration, because of the communication skills he showed during the campaign. Oh well — maybe next president.
“Liberals have been losing the message war now for 3 decades.”
Very true. Liberals win elections when they don’t give the liberal message and lose as soon as they do. I may be worth considering for a moment that people actually do get the message and they don’t like it.
Exactly right. The liberal message is smoke and mirrors.
Right Lloyd. Be proud. Conservatives stink at governing, stink at leading, stink at policy, but boy can they get a message out through the corporate media.
The liberal message is just more complex CMan. Grunting like a cave man "we'll let you keep all your money, liberals communist" is easy but wrong on so many levels, but it sounds good to guys like you.
So you think you are failing because of the messengers and not the message? How were you able to win control of government at all if the corporate media were so good at stifling your message? Wouldn't they have tried to destroy Obama, Reid and Pelosi before they could do any damage if they were that powerful? I saw no evidence of corporate america lining up against this president then nor do I see any evidence of it now. But I probably don't follow corporate media as much as you do so if you have examples that support your assertion please share them.
Two words: Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I know that as the Secretary of State, she isn't really a big player in domestic policy, and much of what she deals with is classified. But she can push a talking point ,and bludgeon any Sunday show gas-bag into oblivion. If the White House really wants to hit hard, send her on a two-week circuit. Mitch McConnell would wet his pants live on "Meet the Press" against a full on "primary-mode" Hillary.
Why do you suppose she would be able to sell Obamacare any better than Obama can when she couldn't even sell Hillarycare?
I don'tthink communication has failed, rather the liberal message is common sense and boring compared to the crazy that comes from Bachman and Palin. The media love a spectacle and there are a lot more "characters" on the right that make an interesting story. And when it comes to elections, I think the right uses fear and anger to rile up the crowds. That is going to beat calm and common sense every time.
Here's a little taste of what she's capable of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NLX-YwTWQk&fe...
Be afraid.
I for one have been surprised that the communication gifts we saw from Obama himself during the campaign have not been a big part of his presidency.
Wow. Blistering. So why did she lose if she was the better messenger? Do you regret the Obama nomination?
We loose the message game because we have not spent 40 years- since the southern strategy, working at dividing the country by placating to fears and ignorance.
The Republicans fail at governing because they make promises that, although sound good, are very destructive beyond the surface. Liberals spend time trying to message the 'why' their message is not good for example:
in 2000 and 2002 Republicans promise tax cuts so that you can spend your money better than the government, especially from those welfare people. They said it was common sense.
Liberals come along and say that it's common sense to have the government pool our taxes so that we can pay for things like schools, wars and roads.
Which 'sounds' better? Which makes better sense?
After eight years of Republicans, we had tax cuts, worse school structures, more on welfare, unfunded wars, falling bridges and the worst economy.
But, some people had some extra money in their pocket, or did they?
Alec thinks the liberal message is just too complex for the average voter to stay engaged with while you seem to think it is just too calm and common sensical to be attractive. That could only explain the low approval numbers for both the white house and congress but not how they were delivered to the democrats less than a year ago.
Is it too complex, too simple or is it just a load of BS? Maybe if progressives would tell the truth about what they want to (or can likely) do you'd have a better sense for people's appetite for your policies. Close gitmo yet? Out of Iraq? Where's that health care bill? Green jobs? No more than 8% unemployment, right? The Iraq surge failed, Petraeus betrayed us, but the Afghan surge will get us out of there in 3 years. How about the transparency that everyone got behind? Can you really blame the Palin, Bachman and corporate media (which would have to exclude Fox since the president doesn't recognize it as a news agency) for stopping this from happening? How much power do you need before your people can deliver on a single promise?
I don't think it is an issue of simple or complex. It's an issue of exciting soundbytes vs boring stories.
Patience, Grasshopper. All in good time.
Once again… it happens all so often here.
What begins as self examination of your party — an attempt to make it better — so quickly turns into a blame game of the GOP.
Obama and Rahm's inability to message well is caused by ignorant southerners. Amazing. You literaly don't get 7 words into a three paragraph post before this turns into GOP bashing.
Let's try a made up scenario, DtM. You come home from work there's a guy with a can of paint and a paint brush. Your front windows are a mess, paint all over the place. Will you then play the blame game?
But if the question is "How do I make myself a better communicator", I'm not going to immediately say that the guy with the paint is the reason I'm not as good as I should be.
I think a more accurate analogy would be; Coming home from work every day for as long as you have been alive to find your windows have been painted all red and blue and the same two idiots with paint buckets fighting in your yard. The cops don't seem to care because with the guys with the paint sign their paychecks. So rather than trying to stop it you pick which color you like best and begin to simply get your entertainment by rooting for one of the two criminals. At least that way you feel you have a stake in what is happening.
You call it bashing, its actually just the truth and you think its bashing.
Perhaps the answer is what has been said more and more often lately:
Great at running for President.
Lousy at BEING President.
The message isn't about him anymore so he doesn't really have a message.
And now, despite it saying there are 15 comments, nothing appears!
I'm done. Either a new comment system or I'm out.
Obama is the better speaker. Hillary is the terminator. I'd prefer her as VP.
She really blew her chance on that by backstabbing Obama with the "If you don't choose me, then McCain is the next best choice" swipe.
Why hold the truth against her now.