Expect a lot more of this train of thought pushed by the Clinton campaign and various journalists and pundits over the next two weeks leading up to the primaries in Ohio and Texas.
Framing Science
What's Next in Public Engagement?
Search
Profile
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com
Comment Policy
-
Keep it substantive, serious minded, on topic, and respectful.
Upcoming Talks
- 11.02.09 Canadian Stem Cell Network, Montreal, CA
- 10.08.09 Robert Wood Johnson Fellows, San Diego, CA
- 09.17.09 Age of Personalized Genetics, Banff, CA
- 09.14.09 Aldo Leopold Fellows, DC
Sci-Comm Journals
Media Agenda-Setters
- Andrew Revkin
- John Broder
- Juliet Eilperin
- Curtis Brainard
- Felicity Barringer
- Charlie Petit
- Kenneth Chang
- Shankar Vedantam
- Nicholas Wade
- Richard Harris
- Jonathan Moreno
- Julie Rovner
- Gina Kolata
- Joe Palca
- Cornelia Dean
- David Goldston
- Nature's Science & Politics
- Andrew Pollack
- Allison Aubrey
- William J. Broad
- John Tierney
UK, Canada, & Australia
- BBC Science
- Guardian Science
- Guardian Environ
- FTimes: Sci & Technology
- CP: Science
- Globe & Mail: Science
- Toronto Star: Science
- CBC: How to think about Science
- TheAustralian: Sci & Nature
- Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Science
News Wires
Social Media to Watch
- Revkin's Dot Earth
- NYTimes Green Inc.
- WSJ's Enviro Capital
- Science Insider
- Scheufele's NanoPublic
- John Fleck's InkStain
- Andrew Maynard's 2020 Science
- Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog
- Breakthrough Institute
- Real Climate
- AJOB's Bioethics.net
- KQED's Quest
Science Podcasts
Research Centers
- SoC @ American U.
- Center for Social Media
- Center for Climate Change Communication
- Yale's Climate Media Forum
- Climate Central
- Pew Excellence in Journalism
- Pew People & Press
- Pew Internet & Public Life
- Pew Religion & Public Life
Media & Culture
- PBS' Current Mag
- Howard Kurtz's Media Notes
- NPR's On the Media Podcast
- NY Times' The Lede: Notes on News
- NY Times Public Editor
- CJR Daily
- Jay Rosen's Press Think
- Romenesko's Daily Fix
- Jarvis' Buzz Machine
- Media Matters for America
- Editor&Publisher: News
« An Early Look at The Future of Science Journalism | Main | Karl Rove on Obama's New Vunerability »
The Contest to Re-Frame Obama
Category: 2008 Election
Posted on: February 20, 2008 8:20 AM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Brain & Behavior
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/64617
Comments
Lack of experience and detailed policies. This is the same lines Obama opponents have been using for a while. Only now their turning up the volume. New frame same as the old frame. Not sure if it will do them any good.
Posted by: colin | February 20, 2008 12:17 PM
I never have been enchanted by Obama. Mostly because he has chosen to proclaim so much change and hope all while promsing nothing more than any other Democrat. In other words, Obama's change is simply more of the same.
Obama's experience is an issue for me.
For example, Obama criticizes Hillary for her vote on Iraq. The fact is that Obama was not in a position to either participate in the debate or vote on the issue. It is dishonest for Obama to claim to have made a stand on an issue when he was not in a position of accountability for your his stand.
Hillary was representing the State of New York in the United States Senate, one of the states most impacted by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 whose population overwhelmingly supported the Bush position on Iraq. Hillary was accountable to the people of New York for her decision.
Obama was representing a district in the State of Illinois who did not support Bush's position. Obama's "stand" against the war is akin to giving a lecture on the evils of drink at an AA meeting.
Posted by: Joel | March 5, 2008 11:57 AM
Obama's initial position on the Iraq war was politically expedient for him to adopt. In short, it won him support and votes among a largely anti-war black constituency in Illinois.
Once the whole "Mission Accomplished" speech was delivered, however, all of the anti-war message was gone overnight. Now to resurrect the anti-war stance, and furthermore to tout it as a defining characteristic of his candidacy, seems a bit disingenuous to me.
Posted by: Brian | March 5, 2008 2:52 PM