In my brief, I said that a modern progressive campaign has to include these three parts, in this order:

1.  Frames

2.  Friends

3.  Facts

As progressives we've had problems conducting our (issue or political) campaigns because we haven't understood this.  Most of the time, we've run our campaigns in the opposite order, believing that having the facts on our side is enough.  As we've found from George W. Bush's (s)election and re-election, having the facts on your side isn't enough to get elected.  We have to do a better job of making our case to the public for progressive and Democratic values.  Let's go through the three parts of a modern progressive campaign one-by-one.

1. Frames:  As many of you know, George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute are dedicated to framing progressive values.  

Rockridge scholars analyze the framing of a broad range of important public policy issues.  According to the Rockridge Institute:

"Frames are the mental structures that allow us to understand reality. Frames structure our ideas and concepts, they shape how we reason, and they even influence how we perceive and act. Generally, we use frames unconsciously, without realizing it.

Uncovering the frames that shape political issues is a powerful technique that can benefit progressives as we seek to revive our American ideals. Our framing analyses examine the political debates of our time by addressing questions such as:
·    how the frames that define issues favor specific interests and exclude others;
·    how frames interact and what makes one frame takes priority over another; and
·    how reframing issues can reveal important truths about political issues."

Using frames effectively allows the public to open their minds to the issues you want to discuss.  If you don't frame effectively, no one will listen to anything else you have to say.

In a political campaign, framing helps the candidate tell why they are running and give a theme for the overall campaign.  If you can't effectively express why you are running for office, why should anyone vote for you?

2. Friends:  Now that the candidate has used framing to tell the voters why they are running and given overall themes for their campaign, they now have to work to get others involved.  Without donors and volunteers, there is no campaign.  In fact, donating and volunteering are two sides of the same coin - in each case the candidate asks the prospective donor or volunteer to get involved in the campaign.

The most effective campaigns do a good job of making their donors and volunteers feel like they have a stake in the campaign.  They give ownership of the campaign to their donors and volunteers and create a movement.  Those involved are motivated to ask their friends and associates to get involved because the campaign is important to them and they feel that they, and the campaign, can make a difference.

Truly great campaigns spread through word-of-mouth, and through existing community organizations such as churches and social clubs.  People mention the campaign wherever they are, and the campaign gives them the tools they need to move forward.  Technology makes this easier, as people can work together both on- and off-line.

3. Facts:  After the candidate has framed the campaign and gotten others involved, then they have to be more specific about what they want to accomplish while in office.  Citizens and interest groups ask what the candidate will do and the candidate answers.  Also, the public works to understand the qualifications of whomever is running for office, since experience matters.

It's important to understand that most voters don't care about policies or a candidate's qualifications until learning about the campaign and the rationale for why the candidate is campaign is running for office (framing).  Voter preferences are also affected those of their friends and associates (friends), as well as what they feel the candidate's overall priorities are (framing again).  Most people do not have the time, inclination, and/or ability to analyze the promised policies of each candidate.  As political junkies, we are very unusual, both in that we care deeply about politics and that many of us understand and can analyze government policies.  A disproportionate number of us are very well-read and/or have advanced degrees - the public isn't like that.  Most people worry about paying the bills and making sure their kids are raised right, not about the intricate details of public policy. Candidates have to be able to give details of policies when asked, and propose reasonable governing policies, but these can't come until the candidate has done a good job of talking about campaign themes and gotten others involved.  Campaigns that get too detailed, too early, at the expense of building the rest of their campaign ("frames" and "friends") ultimately falter as people don't get involved and people don't understand why the candidate is running for office in the first place.

The Current Democratic Candidates:

From what I can tell, there are only four candidates worth mentioning: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson.  So, I want to discuss each of their campaigns, as well as compare them to past progressive presidential campaigns (Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry) to see where they fell short and what we can learn about how to campaign better in the future.  We can even look at the Republican presidential campaigns and see where they fall short (and trust me, all of them so far are terrible).  

The inspiration for this entry came from watching Barack Obama's campaign, and trying to answer why I lean towards voting for him, even though I actually prefer some of the political stances of Edwards (on domestic policy) and Richardson (on foreign policy).  That said, I haven't decided whom to vote for yet in the Democratic primary, nor have I given to any of their campaigns.  With all that said, I'll start by analyzing Obama's campaign using the criteria above.

Barack Obama:  I think that Obama's campaign is the best of the Democratic campaigns.  He's learned from best past practices from both parties and doing a very good job.  It isn't perfect, but it's very good and I think we have yet to appreciate how good a campaign he's running.  If he keeps this up and the rest of the campaigns don't step it up, he'll win every state save the home states of his opponents.  That said, nothing is certain, but Obama is doing very well.  I think Obama will win the Democratic nomination and become our next president.

Framing: Obama's frame (and his latest book) is "The Audacity of Hope" or "hope" for short.  He's running because we must fix our broken politics in order for us to solve our problems and take care of each other as a community.  I like the frame, and it works for Obama.  Using "hope" as a frame places him as the real heir to Bill Clinton ("the man from Hope"), and thereby attacks the strength of Hillary Clinton.  Obama's logo (a sunrise) also very subtly places him as the heir to Ronald Reagan as well ("Morning in America").  The voters seem to love this, as they "hope" that they can put the two horrible terms of George W. Bush behind them.  The public also wants to be brought together and feels that Bush has been extremely divisive, and they are certainly right.

Friends:  Obama is doing great here, as he has twice the number of donors as any other candidate.  That's especially true since he started his national campaign almost from scratch.  Obama also is getting tons of people (up to 20,000!) at his speeches, where people are inspired and tell their friends about Obama, building an off-line movement.

Obama is also building a movement online as well with his innovative website, which combines the best of the Dean and Bush II campaign infrastructure.  Obama says the campaign is about you, and he means it by letting people put up their own websites for Obama for fundraising and volunteering.  It's a big deal, and working very well.

Facts: Many online activists and members of the press criticize Obama for not being specific enough and for not having the right qualifications to be president.  Most of this is unfair.  Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, discusses what he believes about issues and why.  It's very well-written and enjoyable; a real page-turner (seriously).  Obama also has a plan to end the occupation of Iraq, as well as a long, progressive legislative record from his time in the Illinois Senate and a shorter progressive record in the U.S. Senate.  He hasn't been specific about how he will accomplish universal health care by 2012, but at least he has committed to it as a goal.  He also was against the war in Iraq before it started, which is important.

Obama has enough political experience, but it's not really the right type of experience.  Almost all of our presidents have been either vice-presidents or governors before becoming president.  This makes sense because we want our most important government executive to have government executive experience.  You have to go back to JFK to find someone who was elected as president without prior experience as a governor or vice-president.  Obama responds to this by noting that he hasn't been in Washington for long, but he's been there long enough to know that Washington has to change.  Fair enough.

Overall, Obama's campaign is set to mow through everyone else in the primaries and the general election.  Some people are worried that swing voters won't vote for Blacks, but I think the performances of Deval Patrick and Harold Fold, Jr. in 2006 really set that fear to rest.  Both candidates did as well as they were expected to in the polls, and Ford lost by running a mediocre campaign in a conservative state.  Hey - you can't win them all.

Hillary Clinton:  Hillary's campaign is a mess, and most people don't realize how much trouble her campaign is in.  She can win the nomination, but she'd need Edwards and Obama to implode.  Her lead in the polls is overstated and dropping quickly as voters start to see Obama and Edwards (and to a lesser extent Richardson) as serious candidates.  I think she'll come in third behind Obama and Edwards as voters start to pay attention and she is no longer seen as inevitable.

Framing: Why is Hillary running?  I really don't know. There is no frame for her campaign except for an attempt to build a cult of personality around her and her last name.  I guess like she feels like it's her turn, but that sucks because it's our turn to get a president that represents us, and not someone who's running just because she can.

Friends: What is Hillary doing to get people involved in her campaign?  The elites are giving her money, but there's no grassroots energy around her campaign.  Many of the women's groups like her because she's a woman and good on women's issues, but other than that I don't see any energy.  She's nonexistent online and most of us hate her, although we'd vote for her in a general election.

Facts: Hillary is wrong on the facts, too.  I don't even think that she has her policy positions even on her website.  She was wrong on the war in Iraq, and she's wrong on other issues as well (like flag burning and First Amendment rights- yikes!).  

Yes, Hillary will win if she's our nominee, but so will anyone else we nominate.  The Republicans are just that bad.  She's clearly our worst major candidate, though.

John Edwards: John Edwards is a really good candidate.  Not perfect, but really good.  If not for Obama, he'd be the best candidate we've had since Bill Clinton.  He could win the nomination if his campaign catches fire (especially in Iowa) and Obama falters.  If he wins the nomination, he'll win the general election.  Most likely, he'll come in second again for the Democratic nomination.

Framing: Edwards has a good frame with "Two Americas".  It touches on the large increases in inequality that the U.S. has seen in recent years, and really touches the frustration many people have with not getting ahead in life.  The last few years have been tough on the middle class, and it's going to get worse before it gets better (especially as many hard-working people lose their homes through foreclosure).  We know that Edwards is running for president to eliminate poverty here and throughout the world, and to make sure that the working class is treated fairly and can provide for their families.  It's a noble goal, one Edwards speaks to better than any politician since Jesse Jackson.

I don't know where Edwards's frame places him in modern American history.  I guess it places him in the tradition of Huey Long, which is a weird place for him to be.  Most people have forgotten about Long; he was governor and senator from Louisiana and was to the left of FDR during the Depression.  I'm not sure that America is ready for Edwards's all-out assault on inequality.  It may be necessary, but I don't think the majority of people feel yet that there are "Two Americas" instead of one America.  Therefore, I think that Edwards frame places him behind Obama.  But at least he has a frame and a rationale for running, which is MUCH better than Hillary.

Friends:  Edwards has gone around the country nonstop for the last couple of years campaigning.  In that time, especially in Iowa, he has built up a serious campaign and gotten a lot of people involved.  He also has a solid web infrastructure (like Obama) to allow people to campaign and fundraise for him online.  Edwards also has his One Corps, where people campaign for him and work to strengthen their communities.  All of this is very good.

All that said - Edwards isn't a phenomenon like Obama is, with thousands of people coming to hear him speak.  His campaign will explode, though, if he wins Iowa, and he has a decent size lead there.

Facts: John Edwards has led on a host of issues this year, from issues as large as poverty and health care, to issues as small as whether or not to attend Fox News debates.  He has the most specific plans, and has the most progressive plans to deal with poverty in the United States.  I wish he'd advocate for Medicare for All instead of his plan.  However, his plan may be a step in the right direction if the cost advantages from a government plan outweigh the adverse selection into that plan, avoiding an adverse selection death spiral.  Hard to say - I'm a Ph.D. economist but not a health expert.  

Edwards has a tougher time with foreign policy.  He voted for the war in Iraq, and even though he regrets that vote, he was still wrong.  Also, we're not sure where he stands on Iran, or other foreign policy problems.  This actually puts him behind even Obama, who was right on Iraq and has spent a lot of time traveling the world and learning about foreign policy and attempting to implement common-sense, important issues like getting rid of "loose nukes" in the former Soviet Union and keeping them away from terrorists.

Bill Richardson:  Richardson is an interesting candidate, and I think we'll be hearing more from him as the year goes on.  His candidacy has some problems, though, and we'll get to those here.  I think that Richardson will come in fourth, like he is now, but he has an outside chance of winning the nomination if Hillary collapses and he picks up her support.

Framing: Why is Bill Richardson running?  I don't know.  I think he'd make a good president, but I don't know why he's running.  I also don't see any themes for his campaign.  As a former diplomat (he was Ambassador to the U.N.), he could have a theme of "trust" and build around that.  I'd trust him to get us out of the mess we're in as a country - he just needs to build the frame.

Friends: Bill Richardson has had good fundraising ($6M last quarter) and is building a credible campaign.  He doesn't have the off-line or on-line infrastructure that Edwards or Obama do, but it's not too late to build that.  He needs to get moving, though, and he is.

Facts: Bill Richardson has by far the best qualifications to be our next president.  He is currently the Governor of New Mexico, and before that he was Ambassador to the U.N., Secretary of Energy, and a Congressman from New Mexico.  He is the only U.S. diplomat the North Koreans trust, and he negotiates well with the government of Sudan.  He's done a good job in New Mexico, and has the clearest and most progressive plan to get us out of Iraq.  He wants no residual forces and then wants to work with Iraq's neighbors to stabilize Iraq.  If elected, Richardson's foreign policy would make us proud and erase much of the damage that George W. Bush has done to our national security.

Richardson is more centrist than I am on economic policy, but I think he could be effective.  He's a notable free trader (which is unfortunate), but I think he would be very good at economic development because he's done a good job as Governor of New Mexico.

Overall, Richardson could be a great candidate and could win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.  But, he can't make the mistake of past candidates and think that his resume is enough.  He really needs to set some frames for his campaign and get more people involved.  If he does this, he could leapfrog the rest of the field.

The Republican Candidates:  All the current Republican candidates are awful.  I don't know why any of them are running, other than a naked pursuit of power.  McCain doesn't even have the benefit of the "Straight Talk Express" because he's lost track of reality (remember his stroll in Baghdad). Other than McCain, the Republican candidates don't have a large number of donors, and McCain is spending too much money to get his donors (even though he has a good web site and online presence).  Republican activists hate all their candidates, and all the Republican candidates are wrong on the facts as they support our failed occupation of Iraq.  What a bunch of losers!  We'll beat whomever we face, and I hope we pull a ton of new House and Senate Democrats into office on our presidential candidate's coattails.

Past Democratic Candidates:  Let's be honest - most of our past Democratic candidates have been awful.  Since the death of RFK, the only good presidential candidates have been Bill Clinton, Edwards 2008 (so far), and Obama 2008 (so far).  Edwards 2004 was decent as well - given a more logical (longer!) primary setup I think he would have won the nomination.  Jesse Jackson actually wasn't bad; the country just wasn't ready for a Black president.  And Carter - after Watergate, Carter almost had to win (and almost lost anyway).

Generally, our candidates were bad because they never had solid frames explaining why they were running.  Kerry certainly didn't.  Gore 2000 was an exception in that he had a frame ("people vs. the powerful") but it was the wrong frame.  How can you run a "people vs. the powerful" campaign when you are the vice president?  You are the powerful!  Even worse, Gore is the son of a U.S. Senator!  He's always been the powerful!  Instead, Gore should have run on a "progress and prosperity" frame in 2000.  He would have won the president my more than enough so that the Bush family and the Supreme Court couldn't steal it away from him.

Bill Clinton was much better.  Running as the "man from Hope", Bill Clinton ran a great campaign.  He explained why he was running and got people involved.  He understood policy and earned his two terms in the White House.  It's a shame that Hillary isn't as good.  Heck, I don't think that Bill Clinton is nearly as good anymore, even if the Constitution allowed him a third term.

Howard Dean was an interesting case.  He was great on the facts, as he was a popular, effective, and knowledgeable Governor of Vermont who strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq.  He was also great at building a movement to both take over the Democratic Party and win the Democratic primaries.  It just didn't happen.

I'm not sure that Dean had an effective frame.  I was a Dean supporter, and the phrase I remember most from his campaign was the phrase, "you have the power".  It was great to build a movement, but wasn't a frame to build around.  He became the guy from the movie, Network, stating that, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"  Because there was no frame, the media and much of the rest of the Democratic Party framed Dean as angry and unhinged.  It was horribly unfair, but we must understand that if we don't set our own frames that our enemies will do it for us.  We'll get framed as un-American, immoral, and possibly even worse.  We need to set the terms of the argument and make our case for a better America to the American people.

Has the Democratic Party learned its lessons well?  I guess that's the final and most important question.  I think we have, even if not all parts of the Democratic Party have gotten the memo.  Dean is the head of the DNC.  Edwards and Obama are great candidates, and we've had a lot of great U.S. Senate candidates as well (Webb, Tester, etc.).  We've even had some fantastic U.S. House candidates (Kissell, Sestak, etc.), even if Rahm Emanuel wasn't very good at finding and supporting them.  We here in the netroots really need to hold our candidates accountable for running good campaigns (frames, friends, and then facts in that order) and then supporting good policy when they get into office.  If we do that, the sky is the limit for the progressive movement in America.