This editorial from the New York Times touches on something that I have written about before. It is talking about framing the issues.

Values, Dr. Lakoff argues, are the key to framing campaign issues. Democrats have an unfortunate tendency, he says, to see campaigns as product launches, believing that if they roll out a candidate with the best features, or positions on issues, voters will support him. Republicans understand that people vote their identity, not their self-interest - that they seek out candidates whose values appear to match their own.

This leads Democrats to wonder why thy lose when ther campaign included something for everyone.

There are few single issue voters and their vote is usually already spoken for. Each partys base is polarized on abortion and gun control. Free trade is another factor but not as influential. If a candidate seems soft on one of these issues, the single issue voter will not vote for the other candidate, after all, that uy is likely to be worse. More likely the single issue voter will protest either by staying home or by voting for a 3rd party candidate.

The rest of the population looks at the candidate in general, not his position on a limited number of issues. This is as is should be. You have no idea what the next term will bring and you want a candidate who represents your values as a whole, not just on a few issues.

That is why Kerry's goose hunt seemed so forced. He was trying to tell us that he wouldn't take away hunters' guns. At the same time his wild assertions about the expiration of the assault weapons ban told us that he would go after some types of weapons. By trying to pick and choose on issues he seemed forced and insincere. He did the same thing when promising expanded health care and talking about fiscal restraint in the same speech.

The Times editorial doesn't offer much useful advice. The professor they are quoting doesn't want the Democrats to do any soul-searching. He just wants them to come up with catchy names for their positions - "poison-free communities" when talking about pollution and "public protection attorneys" when talking about tort reform.

I don't think that Michael Moore style exagerations will help. It will just make them seem more phony.