Supporters of Obama who keep thinking and writing about the latest manufactured controversy are actually helping to keep the controversy alive.
Don't unwittingly reinforce the negative frames the unholy alliance consisting of the mainstream media, repubs, and HRC is using to define Obama. Because if we're not careful, our response may be as effective as asking someone to not think about an elephant. Think how hard it is to not think of an elephant if you kept saying to yourself:
Stop thinking about an elephant,
Stop thinking about an elephant,
Stop thinking about an elephant,
Stop thinking about an elephant.
And, think about how hard it is to stop thinking about the famous reverend if you kept thinking to yourself:
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
Stop thinking about Reverend Wright.
See? More below the fold.
The point I'm making is one that has been made very forcefully by George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute - make sure, when responding to a criticism or attack, that you don't reinforce the frame or schema underlying the the attack.
Responding to charges of elitism by asserting that "Obama is not an elitist" is counterproductive because it reinforces the elitist frame. It means we are directly responding to the frame and giving it credence and legitimacy. And the more one "defends" Obama by trying to prove he isn't an elitist, the more one just keeps that question alive and firmly within our minds. We continue to ruminate over whether Obama may or may not be truly elitist and then we inevitably lose sight of what it was and is that made us Obama supporters in the first place. And therein lies the seeds of doubt and loss of confidence.
So, anytime we write a diary or comment about the latest Obama smear, there is a strong danger that doing so is helping to water the seeds of doubt that the unholy alliance has been trying to plant in American voters.
Does that mean we're not to respond at all when negative attacks are made? No. It just means that we need to respond in a way that effectively reframes the attack and puts the attacker on the defensive. It's hard to do, and conservatives and the msm have been very effective in framing the issues while progressives haven't been as successful in counter-framing.
I plan to write more diaries discussing ways of reframing Rovian attacks on Obama and the democrats. I'll end this diary by making a request to those people who are thinking of starting another diary on the good Reverend Wright or some other manufactured Obama controversy:
Please try to make sure that your response about Wright isn't reinforcing the negative framing of the issue. How can one tell? When you're done writing your diary, read it and see if you are still thinking about the elephant (Wright) in about the same intensity and fervor as you were before you wrote your diary. If you're mind is still on Wright, that's a good clue that you haven't effectively reframed the issue.
If, on the other hand, you're thinking about the new superdelegates that Obama picked up today; or if you're thinking about Obama's stump speech yesterday in which he brilliantly emphasized that this election is not about Obama or Clinton but that it is about us; or if you're thinking about that wonderful video of Obama asking the youthful Jean Weiss to be his running mate and her stirring, inspiring endorsement of Obama ("Boy, you better be president...You've gotta be president!"), then it's likely you've effectively reframed the issue.