PR Straight Talk

In political campaigns, message equals at least half of perception.  The other half has to do with style - a candidate’s personality, character, likeability, body language and the fluency of rhetoric, and identifiability.

When an economy is in decline, when jobs are down, and mortgages are on the line, message has much to do with economic solutions.  When gas prices are escalating out of proportion to the average person’s ability to manage his or her bills, the message is about lowering gas prices.  When the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals becomes unmanageable, health care is an important message.

When a country is in a long, seemingly endless and protracted war, message has to do with ending war - especially if losses outweigh gains.  

Last but not least, does the candidate inspire?  Offer hope?  A change of some kind?

Thus in the current primary battle, depending upon how voters perceive the messages of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they relate to the above issues, they will veer towards one or the other candidate based on their belief in that candidate’s sincerity, and their judgement that he or she can deliver on the message. 

The same holds true for John McCain.

But the degree of gravitation towards one candidate or the other will also be based on the other major variable - that of style.   Is the candidate likeable?  Is there a resonance with the way the candidate moves and gestures?  Does the delivery of language resonate?  Is there something about the character that moves the voter? 

Where in the assortment of all the above variables does the voter identify?

With respect to Hillary Clinton, clearly many women identify with her as the first major woman candidate.  Voters are also impressed with her tenacity, her strength and persistence, and her experience.  Those who support a universal health care system support Hillary’s plan.   “Message” and “gender” and “character” play important roles.

With Barack Obama, African Americans identify with the first serious candidate of color running for office.  Many Americans resonate with the Obama message of hope and bringing people together; and of a new kind of “cleaner” politics that presents itself as void of typical political games, and a willingness to talk to our enemies without preconditions. Many find Obama’s disdain for the war attractive.  Many are attracted to a high level of rhetoric that speaks to our nobler natures.   “Message” and “race” and “rhetoric” are high on the perception ladder.

During the Republican primary, those voters were clearly looking for Conservative messages, and were high on staying the course in Iraq, and a strong posture against terrorism.  Message was most important.  John McCain prevailed.

Perception of message and style clearly will sway voters in one direction or the other; and the convincability of message and the resonance with style will produce a President in the national election. 

What it seems to me hasn’t been tested enough is the vetting of one particular candidate.  How well do we really know Senator Obama?  How good a job has the media done in helping the electorate by investigating him with a real thoroughness deserving of the highest office in the land?  The Rev. Wright affair and Obama’s extremely tardy denunciation of the man after 20 years of close relationship with him; and the presence of advisors with stances contrary to Obama’s public posturing (e.g., anti-Israel advisor General McTweak versus Obama’s public declaration of staunch support for Israel) create doubts about the Illinois Senator’s credibility.  So do his pronouncement that he will meet with harsh adveraries without preconditions.  Hints of Chamberlain and Hitler?  He will say anything, it seems, in his typically articulate and mellifluent manner, to get elected.

If there has been insufficient vetting, then does that candidate deserve the electorate’s blind trust, message and style aside?  To put it another way, how can a candidate be accountable to the electorate in terms of the viability of message, if there is a lack of experience and lack of certainty as to that person’s background (in measuring up to the words of the message)?

The answer it seems to me is “No” and…”He can’t.”  And given this litmus test, Senators Clinton and McCain are known “commodities” with proven records of long standing, but Senator Obama, who clearly has not been vetted enough, and with little experience on the national level, does not deserve voter trust or confidence, irrespective of message and style.  The stakes are simply too high.

This is one case when message and style seem shallow in importance compared to the certainty that comes from in-depth vetting.

That’s one p.r. man’s opinion - p.r. aside!

Some years ago, as I was meditating, I could hear birds singing just outside my window.  As the meditation went deeper, the bird sounds somehow grew stronger and richer, and as I simultaneously meditated and listened to the aviary song, I could feel my consciousness spiraling upward until I felt myself immersed and at-onement with a “sea of unity and love.”  As I came out of the meditation, I could feel the “sweetness” of life, and I remember thinking that the sounds of birds were a vehicle for Spirit.

Today, as I was having lunch at an outdoor Cafe, some birds - a sparrow, a robin, a parrot and a dove, came close to my table.  I threw them little bits of bread and I could see they were quite hungry and gobbled up the morsels.  I thought of my meditative experience of several years ago, and just as I had that remembrance, the dove hopped onto my table, looked at me, and then jumped onto my right hand.  I took a little piece of bread with my left hand, dropped it into the palm of my right hand as she remained perched on it, and she received the offer and began eating out of my hand.  As she ate, I continued to feed her.  When she had enough, she flew away.

I could not help but think, “a gift from Spirit.”  And a sign of life’s preciousness, and our connection to all of Life through Spirit.

Below is a letter I wrote to Daphna Ziman of StandWithUs, after I read her testimony about the anti-Semitic statements of the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who afterwards denied he made the statements.  This is the link that gives her testimony and the Reverend’s denials:  http://standwithus.com/app/iNews/view.asp?ID=350 

Dear Daphna:

It was not only horrifying to read your account of the vitriolic vituperatives hurled against the Jewish people by Rev. Eric Lee, president & CEO of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but even more disturbing to read his letter of denial, affirming his solidarity and respect for Jews and unbelievably refuting that he made the remarks you and others so clearly heard. 

May I suggest that you get corroborative statements from others who were present with you, especially Assemblyman Mike Davis and Senator Mark Ridely Thomas?

Rev. Lee should be fired as head of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  He does not deserve to stand in Martin Luther King’s shoes.  Dr. King was time and again an eloquent supporter of Israel and the noble struggle of the Jewish people for social justice – not only for themselves, but often for the struggle of African Americans.  It is a fact, as you undoubtedly know, that Jews stood with Blacks at the forefront of the Civil Rights crusade.  Some Jews like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered alongside African American James Earl Chaney on June 21, 1964.  As young members of The Congress of Racial Equality who courageously came to the South to stand up for the rights of African Americans, these three martyrs stand forever emblazoned in history as champions in the struggle for freedom and the rights of all Americans.

Dr. King was no hypocrite, hiding his true feelings for different audiences.  He spoke with the same eloquence, passion and convictions in front of Black audiences as he did in front of white audiences.  He was a friend of the Jewish people and for Israel – and he would express this support at any time, to any audience.

What kind of affrontery to intelligent people of goodwill of all races and religions has Rev. Lee committed!  How can he think he can blatantly get away with his egregious hypocrisy, denials and lies?

This is the problem we as an electorate face with Senator Obama and his relationship with Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Obama speaks to the American people denouncing these men’s bigoted words, but he has not severed his relationships with them.  He spends 20 years as a congregant of Rev. Wright’s Church, and says he never personally heard a bigoted sermon?  This is the same lying and hypocrisy displayed by Rev. Lee.  It reveals a hidden agenda – an antiseptic agenda of inspirational rhetoric dished out for a largely white public; but a hateful and venomous truer attitude that gushes up for constituents.

We don’t know the true Barack Obama, because he constantly “feeds” the media and the general public with what he knows they want him to say, while he de facto surrounds himself with advisors and mentors who belie these statements.  General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, Senator Obama’s military advisor and co-chair of his Presidential campaign is a case in point. McPeak is a longtime anti-Israel critic who has slammed Israel harshly during his career.  And yet Obama utters strong unqualified support for Israel in his public pronouncements.

Just as in the case of Rev. Lee, Barack Obama has two voices:  one for public consumption designed to gain power and the Presidency; and the other what seems to be truer darker feelings evidenced by his close and important relationships.

If I can support you in revealing the hypocrisy and lies of Rev. Lee, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Mike Schwager

C-Span interviewed Roger Mudd this past week, former CBS News weekend anchor and Washington bureau chief for CBS.  During the interview, the subject of Eric Sevareid came up.  Mr. Sevareid was the highly respected commentator on The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.  His commentary came at the end of the broadcast, and ran for just a few minutes. 

Sevareid was a sage.  In running a snippet of the last interview with him on C-Span, Eric said the following about his mission as a commentator on the nightly newscast, which then was the preeminent network newscast, reaching 25 million viewers on an average night.  I’m paraphrasing.  Sevareid said:  I saw my role not as a judge, but as a teacher.  My mission was not to advocate, but to enlighten.

There is no one like Eric Sevareid in television news - or for that matter, in radio news - today.

Sevareid was like a beacon of light amidst the turmoil and seeming chaos of the daily news.  He was able to shed light on an event, a crisis, a national or world leader - not so much as a critic, or a loudmouthed tattler and gossip-monger - but to put a situation or person in context, revealing the underpinnings of an event, unravelling the complexities of a situation in historical perspective, looking at motives, evaluating a happening or utterance from the standard of high-minded universal, humane and respected values.

Those few minutes with Sevareid was something millions of Americans tuned in to absorb.  He was an illuminator and an integrator.  He helped make sense out of seeming nonsense.  He crystallized complexity into profound simplicity.  There was no one like him.

We need a man or woman like that today, especially in the world of ratings-driven network or cable news.  But there is no such person.  Instead, we have news mixed with commentary.  We have Lou Dobbs, an intelligent and able news person turned advocate, mixing it all up simultaneously, in a soup of both news and vigorous, passionate and often angry commentary.  Objectivity has been thrown out the window.  And we have the plethora of talk show commentators, with their highly subjective and biased views hurtled onto the American consciousness, as if their utterances were gospel.  They are not -but the effect is to turn minds without providing context, objectivity, sanity.

We need to have more objective reporting, and respect for commentary not so much as advocacy, but as enlightened teaching.   Will another Eric Sevareid ever grace our experience?  The way things are going, it doesn’t look good, at least as far as the money-driven news rat race is concerned.

David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times, said on Meet The Press this morning that Hillary Clinton should quit.  That she can’t win, and has a mere 5% chance of winning, or less.   Mr. Brooks did not earn my respect this morning.  If every candidate listened to the so-called “respected” pundits for advice, they’d be torn in shreds by the varying opinions of people who’ve never run for anything -and who hold opinions just like all of us do, no better or worse than anyone else’s point-of-view.

Don’t buy it, Hillary - and you’re unlikely to buy it as you’ve declared your intention to stay the course until the Convention.

 Why should Hillary Clinton buy it?  She’s so far won every large-state primary including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and California!  She’s about to win Pennsylvania.  She won in Michigan and Florida, though without - so far - the delegates.  In terms of electoral votes, these are the states needed to win an election.  Furthermore, the Florida delegates should be seated - and Michigan should hold another primary with Obama on the ballot (even though this seems at present to be an unlikey scenario, to the shame of the Democratic Party).

Senator Clinton holds a much more impressive record of accomplishment as Senator than Senator Obama.  She knows how to work both sides of the aisle in the Senate - more so than Obama, though he speaks about “bringing us together.”  She has cultivated relationships with political leaders abroad, and earned their respect.  She has shown herself time and again to be tough and resilient - qualities we need in a President at this time.  This includes the toughness shown by staying the course in the current campaign.

This is a democracy, and neither Hillary nor Obama have yet achieved the delegate count that would earn either the Democratic nomination.

Hillary is not Mike Huckabee, and her performance to-date, in winning the large states, in being quite close to Obama in delegates, has earned her the right to stay the course, until either she or Senator Obama achieves the winning number of delegates required to become the nominee.

So far, Senator Clinton has shown that she is strong, courageous, and not a quitter.  Those are qualities much desired in a President - and she deserves to stay the course until either she or Obama wins the nomination.

From my view, Clinton would be a better President.  Obama lacks experience, and his real views and intentions are suspect.  He may have overcome the Rev. Wright controversy in the public’s eye, particularly after his speech on race - but the questions about why he would attach to a controversial racially divisive Minister with anti-American sentiments, someone he knew intimately for 20 years, and whose sermons he heard for 20 years, have NOT been satisfactorily answered.  Further, Obama’s relationship with Louis Farrakhan, clearly an anti-Semite,  have not been sufficiently investigated.  Third, why would Obama have a close international advisor on his staff, a General who is clearly anti-Israel, if he “says” he is pro-Israel?

I believe actions speak louder than words, and in these instances just cited, Senator Obama’s words belie his actions.  It appears to me that Barack Obama is a liar, and is prepared to say anything under the guise of inspirational rhetoric, to win an election. 

He has won the support of many politicians and opinion leaders, but in my humble opinion, he has “Pied Pipered” them - and I am concerned about his real agenda, his lack of experience, and how he would conduct the affairs of state and international relations as President.

I don’t have these doubts about Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, about Senator McCain.  I believe either of them would be preferable to Senator Obama, because the concerns about the latter raise too many unanswered questions that in my view have not earned him the right to sit in the Oval Office.

Truth in communications.  I wrote about this subject early in my blog postings.  With respect to Barack Obama, the question looms:  how can a man who has cultivated close relationships and sought spiritual counsel from a bigoted Minister speak to America about “bringing us together” and about “hopefulness?” 

The question looms and begs probing.

For a review of my early posting on truth in communications, here is the link:

http://www.prstraighttalk.com/the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-part-ii/

My cousin Gale said it best:  “While you can’t be responsible for what comes out of other people’s mouths, I was always taught (as I teach my children as well) that it says a lot about who YOU are by the people YOU ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH!”

We should think long and hard about who Barack Obama really is by taking a look at his close and intimate relationship with his Minister, Reverend Wright.

If you want to understand who Minister Wright is, read the following link.  This commentary by former Wall Street Journal editor Ronald Kessler, which also appeared as an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, presents a portrait of someone who “may” reflect the true Obama’s views, underneath the candidate’s political rhetoric:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_minister_wright/2008/03/06/78440.htm 

If Senator Obama’s true face has been hidden behind the mask of “Hope” and “Bringing Us Together,” we ought to consider whether he may be a far more complex and shadowy figure than we have heretofore understood.  If that is the case, he may also be the  most talented Pied Piper ever to come to the political stage - and where will he lead us if he is elected?  What will all the Ted Kennedy’s of the world say if they have bought into a great pretense?  And what of our country?

I have carefully listened to all the candidates - Republican and Democrat - for president.   Having carefully listened to each of them, watched C-Span for their full speeches and extensive remarks, read many of the transcripts of their statements in The New York Times and Washington Post - and done my best to examine their records - I am squarely in Hillary Clinton’s corner.  My scrutiny includes not just the intellectual process of examination, but an intuitive take on who Senator Clinton is as a person and a candidate.

I genuinely believe that when she is in touch with her authentic self, and not too much in the throes of her advisors, or even her husband, Hillary comes up as the best choice for President.

First, she has set an outstanding record of accomplishment as United States Senator, serving the people of New York with distinction, and she has shown a first-rate ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans on key issues.  Senator Clinton doesn’t just talk about working together, and bringing opposite sides together - she’s DONE it!

Second, as First Lady, she was an active Ambassador of Goodwill on behalf of the President to all parts of the world, and she was a staunch advocate of women’s rights - as well as Civil and Human Rights.  She was, as we all know, a passionate pioneer in advancing the cause of Universal Health coverage.  She did not succeed the first time around, but she learned many lessons and she is poised to succeed as President.  She is passionate about the causes she believes in, she is a fighter, and she does not give up.  She deserves points for her record of accomplishment, and her passion and steadfastness shows character and strength.  We need a President who evidences these qualities.

In international affairs, I believe Senator Clinton will chart the best course for the United States.  She is much more aware of the dangers inherent in Islamic extremism and fascism, and she will act with care and circumspection before sitting down with America’s enemies.  I believe she will attempt to open doors, but she will not act brashly, and she will not underestimate the intentions of people who are unimpressed with softness, and who are more likely to manipulate us and undermine us based on naivete.  She would certainly NOT be another Chamberlain making peace with Hitler!

Mrs. Clinton is very intelligent.  She is tough.  She is for the people, and for advancing the Global community and the less developed nations - but she is a “street smart” person who will not compromise America in any way with crafty people who don’t respect our system or our rights.

I believe she would be a more capable President than Senator Obama.  I am moved by his inspirational pronouncements, his desire to bring us together - but I do NOT believe he has a handle or the experience on how to work with adversaries - both domestic and international.   I do NOT believe that in this very treacherous time, Senator Obama would have the strength to maneuver through the tough times that are undoubtedly ahead.

On Iraq, I believe that Senator Clinton’s intentions were understandable in taking the vote she did at the time, based on intelligence of WMD that was only later proved faulty, and in the context of the aftermath of 9-11 which had occurred only recently before.  Her INTENTION was to protect America, and while I do not believe that she would have invaded Iraq if she had been President, I believe that as Senator she signed on in order to reserve the right to protect our country.  As a precautionary measure, I believe Senator Clinton acted honorably.

I was against the invasion of Iraq.   Sadam was an enemy of Iran and while he was a rascal and potentially dangerous, he was the “check” against Iranian Middle Eastern intervention.  Having said that, I can look at Senator Clinton’s vote with respect, especially in consideration of her intentions.  But now, we must look at the situation as it presently exists; and I do think that a precipitous and immediate withdrawal would be ill-advised.  Our focus must be on strengthening the Iraqi Army but withdrawing ever-so carefully until we can turn over full reigns to them.  I also think Senator Clinton, while she has declared the need to withdraw, will do so but do so carefully and gradually.

I firmly believe that Senator Hillary Clinton can make a great President.  My vote is for her.  One last consideration - a consideration that is not primary - is that it’s time to elect a strong leader who is also a woman.  Women, and America’s girls - deserve that kind of role modeling and encouragement.

Lastly, the Democrat voters of Michigan and Florida must not be disenfranchised.  Michigan, which did not have Obama on the ballot, must arrange for a new Primary; and Florida’s delegates should either be seated, or a new Primary should move forward there as well. 

Florida’s voters in the Democratic Party Primary cast their vote.   Most of these voters were NOT aware of the decision by the Democratic Party to withhold delegates.  This writer was one of them.  The idiotic rule by the Democratic Party to punish Florida if the Primary date changed, also punished Florida’s voters and should be rescinded immediately.  No need for a new election.  Just count the delegates.  

Michigan is a different story because Barack Obama was not on the ballot.  Michigan should hold a new Primary asap, and either the State, the Democratic Party, or both, should pay for it.  Otherwise, the Obama and Clinton campaigns should split the difference.  Let’s get on with it.  Period.

Whoever the winner of the Democratic nomination turns out to be, it will be a fraud if the voters of Florida and Michigan are not represented.  Period.

In a prior post, I wrote about “That Vision Thing” and acknowledged the strength of Senator Obama’s eloquence and ability to articulate a vision of unity and bringing people together.  That’s a vision that has great appeal not only to young people, but to people like myself with spiritual sensitivites. 

However, I become increasingly concerned about the Obama message - because it lacks a realism about a world with very harsh adversaries who could care less about unity or reconciliation - but who have an agenda that is clearly about the destruction of Western civilization as we know it, and the imposition of a credo that is about control, domination and suppression.  I am referring to Islamic fascist extremism.

I keep recalling England’s Prime Minister Chamberlain, and how he “came together” with Hitler to create a “Peace In Our Time.”  Hitler used him, and then kicked him in the derriere, and it was the prelude to World War II.

I do NOT feel Senator Obama has a realistic handle on the malevolent intentions of countries like Iran, or the truly great dangers of organizations like Al Keida.  I do not feel or think he is a man of substance when it comes to international affairs, and I do not feel he will be tough enough in arenas that call for strength. 

As far as the war in Iraq is concerned, irrespective of how and why it began, and it probably is a conflict that should not have been undertaken - precipitous withdrawal NOW is a very dangerous and tricky thing.  We should think long and hard before we leave the area to terrible enemies.  We should not destabilize Iraq more than it has been destabilized.

I am also worried about Obama’s relationship with people like Louis Farrakhan.  There is something inside me - intuition? - that makes me feel he is sympathetic to this hateful man, in spite of his “denouncement” uttered in yesterday’s Cleveland debate. 

Frankly, I believe that many Americans have been duped by the vision of Obama, without thinking through or scrutinizing his policies, intentions or strategies as President of the United States.   To me, it has the earmarks of the Pied Piper, and I’m sorry to say, I have this gnawing feeling that Obama will be the Pied Piper.  And the American people?

I believe Hillary would be a much stronger leader, and while she may not have Obama’s charisma or eloquence in speech, she is at least his equal if not his better in social/humanitarian concern and experience, and in international affairs.

Frankly, I also feel Senator McCain would be a better choice than Obama.

I do not make these pronouncements with any sense of glee.  But as the momentum now is with the Illinois Senator, and it appears he may capture the nomination and the presidency, I urge anyone reading this to pass these concerns along.  I feel more strongly now than before that Senator Clinton deserves the nomination of her Party - and that the world will be safer, either with her or Senator McCain as our next leader.

Permission granted to quote from this posting, subject to attribution that the quote originated from this blog.