This line "but just as much from progressives who make the mistake of thinking that programs are values" is really where the thinking turns from a pretty picture of a somewhat nebulous "moral vision" to stupidity.

Unfortunately, I think Lakoff completely misses the mark with his proposed solutions to the problem. Obama needs to give rationales for his policies grounded in clearly stated values that are important to the majority of Americans. But it is equally important that he clearly tie his policies to those values and rationales, particularly when we are facing so many crises. And he needs to give clear, concise explanations of why his policies will work. The trick is to communicate in a way that the general public can understand. Just speaking in generalizations to people facing big problems is like an oncologist telling a patient about his goal of curing their cancer without giving some specifics about the treatment and why he thinks it is the best course. (This would be particularly bad if the patient was also hearing from a lot of snake-oil salesmen promoting a miracle cure.)

Bill Clinton always gave specifics in his State of the Union addresses. Not surprisingly the media always carped about how long and boring they were, the "laundry list" of "trivial" programs, etc. but public approval was always high. Clearly the Americans want and appreciate specifics even if our vaunted journalists are bored by them.

A code to be interpreted for the canaille.

By priests.

Like Lakoff.

What a steaming pile of Unity Pony output. No doubt, Lakoff will make a lot of consulting (priestly) bucks for interpreting Obama's Words for the masses.

(1) these are tough times, and people are hungry for leadership; (2) Obama is generally seen as smart, competent and in control; and (3) he refrains from vocalizing any sort of tough moral choice, generally rejecting them all as false.

Reagan successfully evoked that myth with his ranch, wood splitting, horseback riding, etc. Bush deliberately imitated him by buying his Crawford ranch when he decided to run for president. It was amazing to me how readily the media and public bought into this phoney macho posturing given Bush's past history as a spoiled frat boy and draft dodger.

For years Republicans have not only coopted the macho cowboy image for themselves, they have also successfully framed Democrats as "girlie-men" either explicitly (Arnold S.) or implicitly by calling them effete, eggheads, etc. Democrats have never been good at countering these strategies. (Bill Clinton was lucky to go up against Bush I who was weirdly tagged with the "Wimp" label even though he was a fighter pilot in WW II who had been shot down in combat so he did not have as big a challenge as Gore later did.)

Obama did not invent the Post Partisan Unity Schtick though he is an especially fine practitioner of it.

unless you mean solely as an intellectual exercise. otherwise, he's a pretty pathetic  practitioner. see: only 3 republicans could be convinced to vote for his stimulus bill. hardly what i (or anyone else with more than one functioning synapse) would call a "fine" performance.

Lakoff reminds me ... of someone trying to convince themselves that their two-timing spouse really loves them.

you mean she doesn't? that can't be! why, she smiled at me, as she left to go to that nice mr. smith's house (who's wife was, sadly, taken by aliens), to help him over his grief.

(3) he refrains from vocalizing any sort of tough moral choice, generally rejecting them all as false.

not quite true; he has stated his opposition to same-sex marriage. though he has refrained from telling us how, in his informed opinion, this would be bad for our society.

A more honest essay would have simply acknowledged that Obama appears to want to be all things to all people, that he abhors direct and honest confrontation on matters of principle, will go to great lengths to avoid being rejected, and is still struggling to define himself.  He wants to be above the fray, not in the middle of it where it's messy.

In this battle to shape, define and implement policy, I fear that the more the Republicans and conservatives reject him, the harder he will strive to accommodate them, to our ultimate detriment.  We have already seen evidence of this on a number of fronts and on a number of issues - some of it we saw long before he was even nominated, but too few people were willing to give up their systematic deification of the man to confront that reality.

But, here we are.  

BTW, his ex-wife's language doesn't seem to emanate from a love-struck fog like George's does. BTW, you can actually measure what Robin Lakoff says in the Nov. exit polls. George? Not so much.

And I do not believe you can separate programs and values.  Obama may "value" freedom - but he will not legalize gay marriage.  His sense of freedom there is a DELUSION.  Obama may "value" anti-torture policy - but apparently Binyam Mohamed was beaten this past month in GITMO.  And what of that?  Values need also to be expressed and enforced.  Encouraged and rewarded.  

You should try being a scientist and dealing with philosophers of language.... oy.

The President's idealistic question is, what policies serve what values? -- not what political interests?

Did he miss the fun triangulating of recent days?  And what is this?

Biconceptual, partly progressive, Republicans do exist in Congress, and the president is not going to give up on them. But as long as the conservative message machine can activate its values virtually unopposed in conservative districts, movement conservatives can continue to pressure biconceptual Republicans and keep them from voting their conscience on many issues. This is why a nationwide progressive message machine needs to be organized if the president is to achieve unity through biconceptualism.

Lakoff basically admitted that conservativism works because they are extremely partisan.  Party over conscience.  Their message machine is strong, widespread, and partisan.  It can "activate its values unopposed."

But our message machine is supposed to be "biconceptual"?  Post-partisan?  [Although obviously the way Lakoff frames this, he does see there must be a progressive v. conservative battle - our message is going to be at war with theirs - but the goal in the end is not that we win, but that we all come together, or more specifically, that we peel off individual Republicans].  He wants us to bring a magic wand to a knife fight.

Speaking naturally, he lets his deepest ideas simply structure what he is saying.

Is this a review of Forrest Gump?

 Of course there are values most people share, let alone most Americans. Even Sting, hardly a brilliant political philosopher like Lakoff, knew "the Russians love their children too". Those shared values form the basis for living peacefully in the same country or planet. However, they are not enough to direct successful national policy. There are competing ideas on both what that is, and how to make it happen. Unity, as much as it can be achieved, is achieved by one side convincing the other that its ideas are correct.

It's interesting that Lakoff is calling this the Obama "Code" and the way some here characterize it. It was very funny to think of it as a, decode, like for deciphering hieroglyphics. But it's not with a giggle and a laugh it is not a decode sheet of some sort that will find the well of souls.

For me it sounds like that type of code that is the "rule of political level invariants" you know an unwritten law. You know how politicals lie, walk around giving speeches, getting paid big bucks. Its more like in that pirate movie to "Parlay" to honor the code. For heaven sakes America is buying into this stuff called "ear marks" that to me are nothing more than manufactured public media circus fodder.

Sort of like if you don't pass this bill it will be sensationalized on cable for weeks and juggle jabbered by Journalist till out rage occurs and total confusion take to the limit of exhaustion till it just passes because of huge argued fatigue to go away.

I think Lakoff's ideas will prove less adequate in explaining how progressives vote and lend support to leaders.