GUT NUMBERS.

GUT NUMBERS. I’m a sucker for numbers, and using numbers to make an argument. In Iowa this week, Barack Obama and his campaign were using a new tactic for persuading Democratic caucus voters: Contrasting his position on Iraq in 2002 with Hillary Clinton’s vote that autumn by hanging some numbers on the decision to invade and the war that has ensued.“It will be enormously difficult to invest in jobs and opportunity until we stop spending $275 million a day on this war in Iraq,” Obama said. His campaign put out a press release -- relying on this clever little website -- that added the following, Iowa-specific context for Obama’s general argument about the opportunity costs of the war:

For those living in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District, which includes Des Moines, the cost of the war in Iraq will be $756.6 million through 2007. This total is equivalent to providing health care for 238,693 adults and 339,808 children; equipping 851,323 homes with renewable electricity; hiring 17,489 elementary school teachers; offering 134,819 scholarships for university students; creating 113,832 Head Start places for children; building 89 new elementary schools; recruiting 18,745 public safety officers; and hiring 12,676 port container inspectors.

With a lot of attention lately to the emotional-appeal arguments of Drew Westen, I would suggest that the strongest arguments are those that give people a sense of impact -- particularly when those arguments include a factual or statistical argument that is wrapped in a commonsensical, emotional appeal. “Pricetagging” the Iraq war in terms that people can wrap their heads -- and guts -- around is a good way to do this, and Obama’s team seems to get it.--Tom Schaller