I had an interesting discussion the other day ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. My legal background ...

gives me a special appreciation for President Obama's long game thinking.

I don't know how involved he is in the strategic planning; but I suspect he is very involved because just about everything that has been/is being done ... one learns arguing in the court room.

Attorneys approach arguments by introducing where we are and how we got here, framing it in terms of the outcome one desires ... hitting (but not hammering) each point; then he/she establishes the case by lying out evidence supporting/proving the elements of the case; then, the case is concluded by summarizing the case.

Attorneys are taught to lay out the case in sequential order (the Prima Facie Case), i.e., In order to prove my case, I must establish element A, followed by element B, followed by element C. This works well (is required) in brief writing. Further, it is easiest to convince someone of something when they can anticipate where you are going ... so long as they agree with where you are going. But this strategy is arguably less effective in cases before a skeptical audience.

In that case, the stand-out attorney presents the elements in an apparent random sequence ... establishing each element, then moving onto the next, unrelated element.

While this is difficult for most in the legal field to follow ... because of how we are trained ... and can be frustrating for the higher functioning critical thinking members of the audience; but it forces the audience to focus on each element separately, without the competing noise of the audience thinking, "Okay, I got it" and begin considering points you don't want them to consider. Rather, they focus on, and hopeful accept, your having proved the point in front of them.

Then, the stand-out attorney, after establishing each element separately returns to the Prima Facie Case, inserting the individually proved, and accepted, elements into the expected sequential order.

When done effectively, one can almost hear a collective, "Ahhh ... Okay" throughout the court, as you make the connections they sought from the start. It is difficult to not accept the totality of an argument, once you have come to accept the individual components of the argument.

This is what I see President Obama (and/or his team doing) ... They hit a policy point, then move onto a seemingly unconnected policy point.

I think as we close in on the general election (I suspect about a week after the gop convention), the team will have laid out all of their policy points and will move into the closing argument (tying it all together) phase.

Bravo Mr. Attorney President!