Now that we shift away from the primary, I thought the time might be right for a diary about general election campaign strategy.

"Why, Kerry Fan, should I listen to whatever the hell you have to say about campaign strategy?  What expertise do you have in running national presidential campaigns?"

Well, I'm glad you asked (and I'll be happy to take questions from the rest of you later).  I was about to get to that.

To be frank, I have no expertise in running national presidential campaigns.  But I have some thoughts that I think are worth exploring, and I hope you'll take a few minutes to read them.  I wish I had some fancy credentials to tout that would make them sound more legitimate, but, hey, one of the great things about blogs is that we don't need no particular credentials to log on and share our thoughts.  That said, I hope you'll follow me below the jump.

In numerous diaries and comments, I've read the assertion that Obama doesn't talk about "issues" enough.  I've read that his rhetoric about change, unity, and honesty sounds good but doesn't really mean anything.  I've read that it's just a bunch of feel-good nonsense, and that he isn't the right candidate because he's not talking about issues in enough depth.

Certainly, a number of people have responded to that assertion, and I have no interest in repeating things that have already been said by people more eloquent than I.  To the extent I have something original to add to what has already been said, it is that America's departure from its national character IS AN ISSUE facing the country -- in fact, it's one of the most important ones.  For my vote, a candidate's ability to restore our national character by speaking to us honestly and helping us become a nation of citizens who focus on their similarities more than their differences is one of the determinative factors.  

A few things (perhaps it's a sign that I lack intelligence, or perhaps others are confused as well - I'll wait until I see the comments before starting to reach that conclusion):

1.  Why doesn't Obama emphasize -- like, every single day -- that a Bush or a Clinton has been in the White House since 1980?  19-fucking-80. Every single person I have spoken to who is either (i) undecided, or (ii) backing Hillary, acknowledges that it's screwy to keep rotating between two families in the White House.  A remarkable number of them weren't aware of this fact before I mentioned it.  

I'll tell you about it in a second.  I promise.  If I tell it right now, though, you probably won't fully understand what it means.  So, let me begin with some background...

I am an Obama guy, for a number of reasons.  Many of them have been discussed at length in other diaries, but I haven't read any that connects the dots the way I see them connecting.

As has been discussed at length on this site, "liberal" positions are supported by the majority of people in this country.  Yet, when people are asked whether they are "liberal" or "conservative," they tend to say that they are "conservative."  Various statistics back that up.  Something about the "liberal / conservative" paradigm that people see politics through works to the advantage of the "conservatives."  

This phenomenon has been discussed numerous times in other diaries, and I won't expand on it here.  My only point here is that, when deciding on my candidate, I was looking for one who (i) had progressive views, and (ii) could change the political conversation.