>>How are you going to compete with stories like those?<<

That's pretty much the crux of the question, isn't it? Those are stories that appeal to an amazingly large cross-section of people. Dems have two choices as I see it: confront those issues head on, or marginalize them. The latter is difficult -- how can you tell someone with aging parents or a flagging retirement account that they shouldn't care about Social Security and prescription drugs? Hard to do. That leaves head-on confrontation.

So far, we have been pitifully bad at explaining why the Republican stories aren't better, or let alone having any sort of Democratic offering that stacks up to them. Dems need a story that matches on those issues, and we just don't have one at the moment beyond, "but they're so WRONG."

Gives new meaning to "the elephant in the room." Tons of food for thought, there, Hal. Thanks for sharing.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Carville said that Democrats seem to be incapable of saying "no" to any interest group. I think that's the root of the "litany" problem. The Democrats are -- or at least appear to be -- the captives of their interest groups. Good stories are about individuals, not groups. Suppose a Democrat is arguing the case for permitting same-sex couples to marry. Can the candidate illustrate the argument by talking about John and Steve who were together for 20 years until John -- a veteran NYPD officer -- was killed while attempting a heroic rescue when the World Trade Center towers collapsed? Such a story might reduce an audience to tears. Unfortunately, the candidate might be afraid to use the story because it doesn't ALSO mention lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, necrophiles etc. The "litany" is safer, because the candidate doesn't want to be accused of being "insensitive" to the claims of the other groups. So the candidate opts for litany. Thanks for reading, and thanks for commenting.

"Unfortunately, the candidate might be afraid to use the story because it doesn't ALSO mention lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, necrophiles etc. The 'litany' is safer, because the candidate doesn't want to be accused of being 'insensitive' to the claims of the other groups. So the candidate opts for litany."

Come on, Hal. This is utter nonsense. Being beholden to special interests wouldn't prevent the telling of this anecdote.

Good tase would.

Republicans have used and abused the 9/11 story to the point that almost any reference to it is now every bit as hackneyed your example would be.

I'm willing to overlook the cliched 9/11 example and look to the deeper comment, though, which is that in any similar situation a Democrat is more inclined to avoid a single story in order to tell the larger story.

However, I refuse to accept either premise. The first can't be proven (or disproven) without more time for research than I have at the moment. The latter, implied premise, however, is that individual stories are better; as speechwriters and communicators we know that anecdotes are a way to put a face to a statistic, but they can just as often (or even more often) misrepresent the statistic. A typical example would be Republicans who espouse dismantling the Department of Education on the grounds that it is a spectacular failure catering to special interests like the NEA, individual parents of disabled students, etc. etc. etc. The point is often driven home with extremist anecdotes of parents demanding private schooling for kids with LDs, which is supposedly only made possible because of IDEA, which supposedly only exists because of the DoE. These are stories that even make *me* roll my eyes in disbelief and disgust, and both of my kids have received special ed services. But those anecdotes vastly distort the real issue, which is the configuration of the education system, not the configuration of the laws attempting to reshape the educational system. Illustrating that forces one to begin to detail the case ... thus entering the litany.

Is the litany better or worse? It's certainly easier to point fingers at.

Is there a corresponding counter-narrative? The story of the student that was *only* helped because of the presence of the so-called boondoggle? Even if there were, the example is assumed to be exception because the ground has already been painted.

Perhaps the answer, rhetorically, is to switch to reciting the litany *as* narrative -- painting pictures of what the system *should* look like. Translating this to an area like gay marriage would mean painting the verbal picture of a world where dedicated relationships were simply accepted, regardless of the sex of the particpants.

That doesn't address the special interests accusation, but it at least begins to approach compelling narrative, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

A couple of observations....
Yes, Democrats have their interest groups, although I don't think they are any more captive to environmentalists, organized labor and gays than the Republicans are captive to oil, pharmaceuticals,insurance and evangelicals.
Second, isn't talking about narrative premature? I was at an event where I had the chance to ask my Democratic representative in Congress when we [Democrats] would start STANDING for something. She answered that we "have to get our message down first." I spewed out union-brewed beer.

Jefferson wrote speeches that looked forward; they seemed unreal at the time because he was talking about what he wanted, not what was. This would help Democrats of today define what they stand for. Maybe not to sell it.