I'm an ex-Republican, and I used to have a very poor opinion of Bill and Hillary Clinton, seeing them through the wacky prism of conservative spin. The story of my leaving the Republican party is one for another diary; for now, suffice it to say that the 2006 elections saw me as an independent voting like a Democrat. The 2008 primaries intrigued me, especially one Barack Obama; he got my attention, and the closer I looked, the better I thought of him.

I gradually came drawn in to identifying ever more closely with the Democratic party. (Oregon's primary is in May, so I haven't felt urgency about registering.) However, I was unsettled by some of the brouhaha surrounding the South Carolina primary, and I started actively modeling my political comments after Barack Obama's respectful language (with mixed and increasing success).

After reading some more thoughtful analysis of what had happened, I perceived that the MSM has been acting as dramatists. They deliberately stir up trouble in a "let's you and him fight" to make the script more interesting. This was later confirmed for me when I saw them do it to the Obamas.

I'd like to expand on a point that I've mentioned before, that according to a fascinating article in the New York Times, there are five moral spheres: fairness, harm, authority, community or group loyalty, and purity. Liberals emphasize the first two, whereas conservatives weight all five more evenly.

It explains many things, and I will consider two. First, I will look at the differences between  the Republican and Democratic nominating contests. Then, I will look at patriotism.

The Democratic contests all apportion delegates proportionally, out of fairness to the minority preferences in each state. They also have the superdelegates to prevent harm from a manipulative takeover of the process by an activist minority.

There are a lot of contestable senate races and I think that my comment on Oregon's race speaks to a general principle. I assert that Obama's brilliant use of nonviolent communication tactics has more general applicability. I'd like for us to begin brainstorming narratives that would have traction with him at the top of the ticket.

My sample argument is against Sen. Gordon Smith here in Oregon. I might be in too deep here, out of touch with regular folks, but I think that the Democratic nominee could hit Gordon Smith hard over telco amnesty. I tested this on my Obamacan mom, a Euro-American middle class retiree who has worked on campaigns for Smith, and she found this persuasive:

Sen. Gordon Smith is a good man with strong morals. As a conservative, he places a strong emphasis on the moral sphere of group loyalty, and I respect that. Unfortunately, his actions show that his loyalty is misplaced, given to the Republican party instead of to the American people.