The meaning that I took away from it was that the Democrats are endlessly sabotaging themselves and their positions by focusing too much on the branding of the positions rather than on the defense thereof.
He mentioned Kerry -- his campaign was a fantastic example of this. The Democrats didn't defend against the Republican rhetoric, which was quite skillfully deployed. I was screaming at the TV every time the Dems didn't take the opportunity to defend against the Reps' wishy-washy accusations. A good defense would have won the Dems that election. But instead they spent all their air time trying to market themselves in increasingly weaker, more desperate ways.
A good marketing strategy is a must to obtain buy-in from the public sphere, yes. But the marketing strategy needs to be devised before its deployed, and then it needs to be supported by something meaningful.
"Public option" is a terrific catch phrase, insofar as it rolls easily off the tongue, and it still gives a sense of the concept. But it's a terrible catch phrase when it comes to obtaining bipartisan buy-in. When the conservatives are still on guard to defend America against socialism, the word 'public' was probably a bad call. And 'option' doesn't rally together the liberals who want pure universal coverage right now. Together, the phrase large arouses defenses from both sides, while at the same time not providing enough positive spin to counteract either.
