Words have Meaning: Why Democrats choose Obama.
I will go out on a limb and predict that Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination. It is a big limb almost broken off from the weight of all of those who are on it. Still, I have not yet heard anyone give the rationale that made up my mind on this It is a matter of his choice of words.
If you listen to his speech in Des Moines when it had become clear that he had "won" the caucus selection there. It was filled with the word "we."
This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long - when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who’d never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so.
This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism; the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up. This was the moment.
Years from now, you’ll look back and you’ll say that this was the moment - this was the place - where America remembered what it means to hope.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton's speeches, they are filled with the word "I". It is about what "I" have done or what "I" will do, always "for you" but it never it is never about "we".
One time Republican spin meister, Frank Luntz, has a book out now with the title "Words that Work." He makes the point that "It's not what you say. It's what people hear." Luntz goes on to remind us just how he has been so succesful.
Before you can create, and certainly before you judge, you have to listen to people and respect them for who they are and what they believe. Just because you may not ultimately accept or endorse someone's subjective perceptions is no excuse for refusing to acknowledge that they exist
At a point in time when the voters of this country doubt the sinserity of politicians, when we believe to the core of our being that all politics is corrupted by the power of corporate money, Obama's inclusive "we" makes it clear that the power is now coming back to the people. It is merely a rhetorical device, but one on which he can build a movement, pull in the people, get new voters to the polls.
Other candidates will ignore this to their peril. It is the reason that people flock to Obama and not to Edwards. It is the reason that Hillary will lose, because, with Hillary it is never about 'we'.
If Greens want people to "come home to the Green Party" then it must be about what we will do, together.
Technorati Tags: 
Wes, I think your observation about the language of the campaign is correct. Senator Clinton must have read your post as you could see her own language change in New Hampshire; however, I still think it's her race to lose. When all of the others have fallen by the wayside and the race focuses on these two, Obama's weakest links will be exposed. Once Democrats see there is really little difference between the two, the "Billary" factor will kick in and I see some of the wind coming out of Obama's sails.
I haven't seen the final numbers for 2007 but it's already been reported the both Senators Obama and Clinton have raised over $100 million dollars.
Both campaigns are dominated by large donors; however, the most striking thing about Obama's ability to match Clinton in fund raising is the source - Wall Street. The list of Obama's top donors is littered with Wall Street firms.
Democrats - the party of Wall Street. You've got to admit, that's pretty damn funny. It's not exactly a surprise around here that there's no significant and meaningful difference between the Dems and the Reps; however, once the fact that there's no difference between Obama and Clinton gets out, I think the Dem establishment could weigh in on the side of the Clintons despite the mainstream media's best attempt to turn Obama into something he's not - a change from the status quo.
Obama has gotten a free pass on substance to this point primarily from younger voters who are more easily mesmerized by his rhetoric; nevertheless, once this primary begins to wind down, I still believe Senator Clinton will be a little more than Obama can handle. I also believe this morning that this will become more pronounced once the primaries move to states with closed primaries where independents get drowned out.
There's still plenty of time for the Clintons to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but I'm not convinced Obama will be able to close the deal.
Lastly and a little of topic, over at that Dem site fearless leader is trying to convince the rank and file to cross party lines and vote for Romney in Michigan - dirty tricks. Seems the Dems will not be seating Michigan's delegation at their convention because that state moved its primary forward so there's nothing at stake in that one. I guess some Dems just aren't satisfied with Iowa, a state just as likely to go Repug in the general election, selecting their party's candidate. Of course, the Democratic establishment responds by shooting itself in the foot, basically siding with Iowa and kicking Michigan, a more diverse state with an ailing economy that Dems can't lose and still have a prayer of winning the general election, to the curb - Nice play. Obviously that party isn't being run by rocket scientists.
Well, maybe it's small consolation this morning but it's easy to tell the Green Party isn't the only one with a few internal conflicts. As far as dirty tricks, you would think that sooner or later the Dems would learn that every time they try to act like the Repugs by showing their asses, the Repugs always hand them back to the Dems on a platter - It never fails.
There is a rather substantial difference between the Green Party and the corporate parties. I think the Green candidate should have little problem exploiting this fact. The primary question is how long it will take for enough self-styled progressives to wake up and smell the coffee in order for the Green Party to have a loud enough voice to become heard over the fray? By necessity, finding the means to accomplish this end will be the focus of any potential Green presidential candidate.