If you watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you got to see Markos interviewed.
(I tried to embed the video, but it didn't work)
You can see it at Countdown's website.
Unfortunately, as I have previously brought out, there is an art to fighting, even in the press.
As there is no transcript, I'll have to paraphrase the questions, so bear with me, but, as you watch the video of it, you'll surely be able to follow along.
Olbermann checks the plate. Nobody on base. He gets the signal. He pitches one to Markos... and he zings one right over the plate.
Olbermann asks Markos, "How important is this to get Obama to filibuster FISA, and if he doesn't, how much netroots/grassroots support does he stand to lose if he doesn't, if any?"
Ok, this question was a "feeler" pitch.
Markos goes into a nice answer of how he won't lose any support, because, who do we have Obama versus McCain and we really have no choice but to vote for Obama. Markos then goes into how it could affect the intensity of the support Obama gets from the netroots/grassroots because Obama is working to be the leader of the Democratic Party and the Free World as President, and there are people hoping to see Obama be that leader. Also, that Obama wants to be the person to put his hand on the bible and swear to defend the Constitution. Markos finishes that Obama has the chance to step up and show he's a leader, or, if he's just another spineless Democrat.
Ok, so in my eyes, Markos finished strong on that swing, but, because he starts weak at first... well... he pulls it to the left; foul ball.
Now, what would I have liked to have seen as Markos' answer?
You know Keith, we have watched Republicans bring out the fear card time and time again to justify weakening the Constitution and it isn't working for them anymore. Obama has a great opportunity to step up and solidify his support, not only of Democratic voters, but with the Independent, Veteran and Military voters as well! If Obama goes into the Senate and shows the nation that he will fight for their Constitutional liberties, especially at a time when American troops are fighting and dying overseas, people who themselves swore to defend the Constitution, he could double his support almost overnight!
Now, what is the difference here? Framing. I have taken a question that frames the debate as a point of weakness for Obama (what will he lose) and turns into a point of strength for Obama (what can he gain).
Olbermann winds up... he checks the signal... he throws a pitch a bit high... Ok Markos... take the high road!
Olbermann moves on to John Dean's point about how badly written the bill is, and asks Markos if that could be what Obama is counting on; basically giving up the civil suits knowing the criminal liability would still be there; then holding that big punch after the election. Markos replies that if that is Obama's strategy, there is nothing to indicate it. Markos makes the point that, at the end of the day, Obama has the chance to stand for the Constitution and show that he will protect it against the forces who seek to undermine it.
Ugh... ok... Markos swings and misses. Sure, you say, but he made the same point you did!!! Yes, but because he didn't make it FIRST, right out of the gate from a position of strength and reframing the question, he wastes this pitch!!!
Here is what I would have liked to see as Markos' answer here:
Keith, we have two separate types of laws, civil and criminal, for a reason. Because the Bush administration politicized every office they could, we cannot guarantee we'll ever see a criminal trial. Just look at the Valerie Plame outting where Scooter Libby got his sentence commuted by President Bush! The only recourse left to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame was a civil suit. I think Bush fears the civil trial because that is what they are working to stop at all costs.
As John Madden would say, "BAM!" You show why the civil suits, especially in Bush's case, are almost vital! They care little about criminal cases because they have proven that they will simply negate those cases.
And then... Olbermann checks the plate... he gets his signal... he winds up... and here comes the softball...
Olbermann asks Markos about the 50-state strategy. Olbermann makes a great point about bleeding the McCain campaign by forcing them to defend the strongholds, or, do they think they can make margins and gains in some or many of those states.
Markos rears back... and bunts...
Markos answers about how to win elections, you have to win states. He then goes off into Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns putting all their eggs into one basket and losing because of it. Markos finishes by kinda meely-mouthing Olbermann's point about bleeding of resources.
ACK!!!! Markos. What WERE you thinking here????? OMG... you got the perfect pitch... and you choked! You got the chance to hit it out of the park and you bunted!
Here is the answer:
Keith, the GOP brand is so tarnished now that the GOP is already losing in their traditional strongholds. The GOP just lost a special election to a Democrat in Mississippi. That had nothing to do with Obama. So, the political landscape for Obama right now is perfect for the 50-state strategy. Yes, the GOP will have to defend them and yes it will drain resources. Don't forget, Bob Barr is working to enter the General Election and that could be the trump card that gives the red states to Democrats. Obama and the Democrats have a very favorable landscape to take strongholds away from McCain and they absolutely should take it.
Fighting in the political realm is not just about the politicians actions, but, the pundits who support them as well. That is why you have so many pundits pushing one message for the GOP. They understand this. That is why you have so few pundits for the Democrats, all saying something different. They don't.
I give all the credit where credit is due; Markos took a website and an idea and turned it into a place that is now nationally known. He is now making the rounds as a political pundit. But, come on Markos, if you are going to be put on national television, get your talking points in order!
- You argue from a position of strength. ALWAYS. If you have to reframe the issue to do that, you do that right off the bat.
- You have limited time to make your case. You don't argue what your asked, you get YOUR points out there at all cost.
- You want people to see Obama as a strong candidate. You are now a pundit, and will be viewed as "his" pundit. You must give the aura of strength as well.
- You remember that every answer is not a defense, it is an attack. You do not defend your candidate, you attack your opposition's candidate/Party. Because...
- At the end of the interview, you want people thinking about the good of what your candidate brings and the bad of the other candidate/Party, not what the defense is of your candidate.
I watched the interview. Markos seemed skittish, a bit unsure of himself, and unsure of the talking points. The answers were defensive in nature of Obama, and did nothing to bring out the McCain/GOP inadequacies and how Obama can capitalize on them.
This isn't an attack on Markos, as much as a roadmap on how to do it much better.