Framing matters! The way you say something matters!!!

Stop using the words "can" and "can't", and instead use "will" and "won't."

Using can and can't puts the onus on you instead your competitors, and I'm frankly sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over again.  This is the 1,000,000 time I have said this this campaign.

This is what I'm talking about:

Edwards told a group of union members gathered in Las Vegas that he'd won recent labor endorsements because the groups' leaders had deemed him the strongest general election candidate.

"I can compete in the general election in states like Nevada. I can compete in a general election in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, all places that we're going to need in order to be successful," Edwards said during a stop at his campaign headquarters in Las Vegas.

"There is no place in America where I can't compete in the general election," he said.

Anyone "can" compete everywhere, but "will" they?

The 2008 primary season is moving into the homestretch now, with Labor Day right around the corner.  

At this point, many people have decided who they are going to support, or have whittled the choices down to a few candidates.  Minds will be made up soon.  Voting will begin sooner than you know it.

So, here are the questions.

Who do you support?

What don't you like about the candidate that you support?

Fact is, if you have family members, you "support them," but it's not like you "like" everything about them.  If you're married, you may love your spouse, but you don't like everything they do.  

A candidate is no different.  What don't you like about the candidate you support?

For example:

It's exactly why you now have a poll out showing how most Americans say "the war is not lost."  

Here's the statement:

"The old Washington ways need to stop, and they need to stop now. The president keeps on asking for money, and Congress keeps caving. All the while, a war the American people want to end just goes on and on. That's the way they do it in Washington, D.C., but the American people are tired of excuses.

"Now we learn that the president is so confident Congress won't stand up to him in this fall's funding decisions that he's actually going to increase his request to fund the surge by another $50 billion--on top of the original $147 billion supplemental he requested. Let there be no doubt, this money will fund a failed Bush strategy in Iraq that that has failed to reduce the average level of sectarian violence in the country.

"Enough is enough. When Congress comes back next week, they should stand firm and make their position clear: No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

"In October, Congress needs to send the president a funding bill that withdraws all combat troops within the next year and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive political solution that will stabilize the country. If the president vetoes that bill, they need to send him another one--and do this as many times as it takes for the president to finally get the message that he cannot defy the will of the American people, of Congress, and even of many members of his own military who believe it's time to end this war and bring our troops home to the heroes' welcome they deserve."

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-re leases/20070829-iraq-funding/

Now, even though the poll is a Zogby poll and has mixed results, it confirms the problem.  Here's the problem.

This is how rumors get started.

Everyone who knows anything about John Edwards, knows that John Edwards supports expanding embryonic stem cell research.  In fact, in the press release before the LiveStrong Presidential Forum, the press release from John Edwards' campaign included:

- Respect Science: John Edwards believes that policy should be science driven, and that science shouldn't be politics driven. Ideological debates have drained resources from promising research. Edwards will increase funding for and lift stifling research restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, while banning reproductive human cloning.

But over at the DU, they are telling this lie:

This is something that always frustrates me.  One thing that you notice whenever you have a discussion with many Democrats online about the differences between the Democratic Candidates, is when some refuse to accept any flaws about the candidate that they currently support, in most cases Hillary Clinton, the response is always, "Well, she's better than any of those empty suits on the other side."

As best as I can tell, there are two main reasons why they say this.

This CNN YouTube Debate will probably be the most watched debate of the year.  

What's the most effective way to get people to watch a television show, even the news?

Make them believe that they will be on it.

Wall Street is funneling money into the Obama and Clinton campaigns.  Many believe that is because Wall Street "sees the writing on the wall," and is trying to jump on the bandwagons to find favor with the two candidates most likely to become President.  That Wall Street all of a sudden would rather have Democrats in the White House than Republicans.  

Come on.  That's a fantasy.  Who are those people kidding?  

Others believe that the money means that Clinton or Obama would cater to corporate interests if they were to become President, and they probably would.  But, might it just be that Wall Street would is funneling primary money to Clinton and Obama because they would rather have either as the Democratic nominee, because they view them as EASY TO BEAT in a general election?