PR Straight Talk

Hillary - when you opened your heart at the end of the Austin debate tonight with Senator Obama - you exposed the deeper part of yourself and your feelings - and you won our own hearts.  This was the second time you connected to me in the heart - and undoubtedly to millions of other Americans.  The first time was in New Hampshire after your Iowa loss.

When you spoke to your empathy for amputee veterans - and when you became magnanimous in your appreciation of Senator Obama - I “saw” who you were in your heart.  I saw your essence.

Hillary - do more of that.   Do it now.  Don’t give up your strong stand on the issues - but if you lead with the heart, and complement with the mind - THAT’S a winning combination.  That’s the WHOLE Hillary!

Whether there’s time to regain the momentum in the race by winning Texas and Ohio, we won’t know until the outcome is known in those primaries just ahead. 

But one thing I do know - without being the WHOLE you - the campaign is lost.  And should you lose by keeping your true voice, you will have won in Spirit by being yourself - and winning the admiration of the entire country. 

Speak too about your Dreams.  Obama speaks about Hope.  You speak about your  Dreams - the Dreams you’ve had since  you were a young woman…even a girl.  Including the Dream for a woman to reach the highest office in the land.  Speak about those Dreams and how they led to your fight for Solutions, the word you recently coined. 

Your Dreams are larger than yourself - and bring you closer to your Heart - and can open up the Hearts of others.

Super Tuesday, with Hillary Clinton winning New York, California and Massachusetts (the latter in spite of Senator Kennedy’s Obama endorsement) clearly shows that she would be a strong candidate in a national election.  Nonetheless, the struggle for delegates was about even, with Obama having edged out smaller States that were Caucus-run.

The next crop of States lean towards Obama, but States like Ohio and Texas after that are fair game for Clinton.  Nonetheless, Obama as the evident favorite of many younger Internet savvy voters, has won him (so far) stronger financial support through that medium - with Clinton accumulating dollars among middle-aged and older, wealthier voters - but with fewer cumulative dollars than gathered by Obama.

The campaign for the Democratic nomination ensues, as yet undecided, and it’s too close to foresee the winner.  Obama has momentum, but Clinton’s appeal is powerful and should not be underestimated.

If I were counseling either candidate, I would urge Senator Clinton to have more television appeal ads produced, focusing on warm “fireside” chats from her living room, with the warm side of her personality highlighted, with strong message-driven content that also shows her firmness on tough issues.  These “warm” ads gain her points and counter her not entirely earned reputation as cold.  She needs to show her toughness on issues, but her warmth as a personality - not only in ads, but in future debates too (she did a great job in projecting both sides in the California debate).   

I would also advise her to reflect that toughness when it comes to pronouncements about dealing with harsh international adversaries; and hitting Obama on his statements about meeting with enemies before preconditions have been set.  There is even a place here to cite the terrible mistake made just prior to WW II by Britain’s Prime Minister Chamberlain in making deals with Hitler, only to have had them broken some short time after.

If I were counseling Senator Obama, I would advise that he continue with his inspirational messages, but combine them with more specific messages on issues.   He needs to assure the American people that his willingness to bring opposing sides together does not make him naive or weak, and that there is a solid foundation of strength and a firmness in standing up for principles at the foundation of his willingness to explore dialogue.  He needs to establish that he is not an ignorer of the lessons of history, and that there is a fine but nonetheless clear line of demarcation between the wisdom gained in having learned those lessons - and the wisdom and courage taken in allowing for a movement towards a new paradigm that seeks to find the common bonds between us rather than that which divides us.

On the Republican side, Senator McCain is close to victory as the Republican nominee, but Huckabee, with his wins in the South and today in Kansas, seems aimed at winning Conservative votes to the perception of McCain as a moderate.   McCain is very strong on the pro-Iraq/pro surge issue.  Huckabee is strong on the issue of tax cuts and pro-Life.  It is more than likely that Huckabee is vying for the Veep spot in a ticket that would reach both moderates and Conservatives. 

Yet there seems to be an opening for an independent like New York’s Mayor Bloomberg to insert himself as a Third Party candidate, pointing to fiscal Conservatism and social progressivism as a viable alternative to both the Democratic and Republican positions.  While at the moment an unlikely development, it is not out of the realm of possibility.  

The American people are looking for reassurance that we are safe from terrorists, safe with decent health care, safe in our environment, and that the future is hopeful with the promise of jobs, economic security,  and opportunities for human development.    How each candidate brings his or her individual messages which reinforce both sides of that equation can earn them additional support and votes.

So let us stay tuned.

I am outraged.  I am a registered Democrat (though I will from time to time vote Republican or Third Party if I believe in the candidate).  I voted in the Florida Primary; and I voted for a Democrat.  But my vote fell flat, since the Democratic Party punished its fellow Democrats and Florida for having changed the date of the primary by removing the right to assign delegates to the winner.

Hillary Clinton won the Florida Democratic Primary decisively, but she takes with her not one delegate - just a psychological victory.

This is an outrage!  This is unAmerican!  This is a sapping of the power and rights of the voter!  I would say this irrespective of who the winner was in Florida.

The Democratic Party must restore the delegate count to the Florida Primary.  It must do so forthwith.   If necessary, Florida Democratic voters should appeal this decision in the Courts.  The matter could go to the Supreme Court for a final determination - though given what the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election, disrespecting the electoral system which should have awarded Florida to Al Gore - I have my doubts that this highest body would come to the rescue given its clear political bias.

Let us hope that the Democratic Party itself, upon appeal by the Clinton campaign - and all fair-minded Democrats - will correct itself and give to Senator Clinton the delegates she earned and deserves! 

The just-held debate between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles was a gem.  The two remaining Democratic candidates obviously decided to part from contentiousness at a personal level, and stick to the issues. 

When politicians debate the issues and stay away from personal invectives, especially in a presidential contest, they serve the American electorate at the highest level, enabling voters to comprehend where they stand on policy, how they contrast with their opponent’s positions, and allowing each voter to ultimately make a clearer decision in the voting booth.

But voters are of course also persuaded by personality, especially in consideration of how a candidate would relate to people, relate to his or her own staff, to Congress, to leaders of other countries (both allies and adversaries), and to crisis. 

“Personality” is not just the outward persona showcasing a person’s style of behavior.  It is a mirror of the deeper self - reflective of such words as character, intelligence, compassion, resilience, toughness,  and realness.

In the many media interview training workshops I give throughout the country, “realness” is something I cannot teach.   A person is either real, or he or she isn’t.  However, what I do encourage my students to “get” is that to the degree they are less attached to worrying about what others may think of them, and more connected to their true values and beliefs, then they are consequently going to project more of their real self, and less of the phony, concocted self which most people see through quite quickly.  After all, every human is intuitive - and every human has the capacity to perceive another person’s genuineness…or lack thereof.

Prior to Iowa, Hillary was not terribly in touch with her feeling self; or that was my perception.  She wanted to convey strength and knowledgeability - but since she is already a strong and knowledgeable person - she didn’t have to “work” on projecting those attributes.  Her fear, in my opinion, was in showing her softer, more vulnerable feminine side, seeing that as something voters, especially men, would disrespect as weakness.  Ironically, without showing her vulnerability, she also suffered from a certain lack of likeability, and this is a huge problem in a presidential campaign.

After her loss in Iowa, however, an extraordinary moment came.  She saw that she could lose - and what came up for her was her long history of fighting for those issues and causes she believed in, and that she might not attain the presidency and come into a position of truly achieving her Dreams in a way that capturing the White House could realize for her.   In other words, the loss brought her into contact with what she was fighting for, what she valued and believed in, and that it could all come to an end.  The loss brought her into greater touch with her real self, and what she described as “my voice.”

This brought up great emotion, great vulnerability and  a great lesson:  Senator Clinton had to balance her self-evident strength and knowledgeability with her humanness.

Back in 2000, when Al Gore debated George Bush, he lost points because he came across, to many people’s surprise, as arrogant.  His vulnerability did not show up - though his intelligence and knowledgeability did.   He suffered from a loss of likeability.  He may well have suffered at the ballot box because of this faux pas as well, though other forces seemed to have colluded against him besides his own over-confidence.

I think to a large degree Senator Clinton’s Iowa defeat may have saved her from the same self-wounding - and that showed through in the California debate with Senator Obama.  She was centered.  She allowed her caring, vulnerable side to show itself, along with her knowledgeability, intelligence and toughness.

Senator Obama, who always comes across as extraordinarily articulate, high-minded and intelligent, evidenced those attributes.  Ironically, I think he could have benefited from a touch more of toughness in his point-counterpoint with Senator Clinton.

For this reason, and from my perception, Senator Clinton edged out Senator Obama in the debate.  We’ll have to wait for the outcome on Super Tuesday to discover if voters around the country give her the lead as the Democratic presidential nominee ultimately emerges.  If she prevails, even slightly, it’s clear that at least in part it is because she did indeed find her real voice after Iowa, and connected, or reconnected, with her deeper self and the beliefs and values that have driven her all these many years.

If she prevails as the Democratic presidential nominee, Iowa will have served her well.  If she does not, she is nonetheless a more compelling figure both in terms of her political stature and her human capacity to reach the people.

Television again showed its power and impact after the winners of the Iowa Caucus were announced, and the leading candidates made their election-results speeches.   All major cable and broadcast networks covered the speeches of Senator Obama and Senator Huckabee, the Democratic and Republic winners, respectively, and in that instant, they became nationally known as never before.

As a regular follower of C-Span, I am following the more extensive and in-depth pronouncements and remarks of all the candidates, so I had been aware of Senator Obama’s gifts of oration and inspiration.  C-Span, however, reaches a more limited, politically focused audience - and does not impact upon the national electorate in the way of the combined power of all the commercial news networks.

In one instant, Obama and Huckabee were on the national stage as never before - and became national celebrities as never before.

It made me realize, once again, the power of television - and the power it has not only to raise awareness, but the potential power to act as a force for raising consciousness.

See my earlier post, “Why We Need to Transform Television,” to get my fuller view in this area:  http://www.prstraighttalk.com/why-we-need-to-transform-television/

Happy New Year everyone!  May 2008 bring you closer to the realization of your Dreams!

As our planet continues its journey around the Sun, and as humanity continues to evolve, we must pray that the evolution of consciousness (Spirit, Heart, Wisdom and Awareness) keeps up with the evolution of technology.  As I’ve written, the danger for the latter to outpace the former raises profound concerns, especially with the dangers of our weaponry and the harshness of certain ideologies in different places.

Every now and then, champions surface to the fore who uphold humanity’s highest and noblest values:  Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama…and, a shining star whose Light was just recently dimmed on the physical plane - Mrs. Benazir Butto.   She was a true champion of democracy, and her courage in the face of danger was of the stuff true martyrs to higher purpose are made.  It deeply saddened me to learn of her assassination, and hopefully her death will find redemption in the struggle she fought for - to bring the voice of expression and power to the people.

The only strong voice I heard among politicians in this country regarding Mrs. Butto’s murder, was that of Senator Joseph Biden.  He called for the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf, and the appointment of an interim coalition government that would pave the way for meaningful and honest elections in Pakistan.   That was a strong statement, and it reflects the views of a strong democrat (small “d”) whose experience in international affairs combined with a deep appreciation for democratic values shines through.

Every candidate has particular assets.  With Joe Biden it is deep experience in international affairs.  With Senator Hillary Clinton it is broad legislative experience and considerable experience with domestic and international issues based on her White House years as First Lady.  With Rudy Guiliani it is finely honed and effective management skills as the once-Mayor of New York, and a steadfast focus on the issue of Islamic terrorism.  With Senator Barack Obama it is “the vision thing.”

Listening to Obama on the stump, I’m frequently in awe of his amazing ability to inspire, to see the larger picture, to articulate a vision that contextualizes where as a democracy we come from, what we’ve inherited in vision and values from our Founding Fathers, how our struggle to achieve the ideals of the Declaration has evolved and must be ever-perfecting, and how our commitment as a nation to these values - the values of civil and human rights, freedom of expression,  and unity in community, demands continuing commitment.

Obama, it seems to me, has captured some of the hopefulness of the late Senator Robert Kennedy, whose articulation of the vision of the American story as evolving and perfecting based on its founding principles, was truly inspirational.  Senator Kennedy reminded us of who we were and who we can become - and his greatness, it seems to me, was forged out of tragedy (the deaths of his brother and Reverend King).

Obama carries that inspiration in his message, in his own unique and profoundly articulate way.  I think only a few presidents have used the bully pupit of the Presidency as an inspirational pupit in such a way, to capture in energy the Spirit and potential of the Republic - Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.  Whether one agrees with their politics or not, these men came in at points in time where the American public needed a certain “reminder” of who we are, where we come from and where we’re going.   And they each articulated their messages in unique ways, and sometimes via a new paradigm of seeing.  Senator Obama has that gift - and through the prism of a paradigm that is fresh, he seems to view political reality in a way that offers new approaches to old problems.  This way includes a willingness to deal with our “enemies” with fresh eyes and an openness for dialogue.

I watched C-Span the other night, where Bill Clinton delivered a speech to Iowans in support of his wife Hillary as presidential material.   The former president spoke extemporaneously for about an hour, without notes. 

I was in awe of the man’s brilliance, his deep understanding and familiarity with the issues, his uncanny ability to present his knowledge in an almost folksy way - a way that reached people.   I thought, this man is a genius - in his breadth of knowledge of domestic and international issues, and in his ability to communicate.  He assured the audience that Hillary, in terms of her experience, her knowledge and her wisdom, was the best-equipped of the presidential candidates.

I came away listening to Mr. Clinton in true admiration for his knowledge and his communications skills.   If he was accurately describing Hillary in terms of ability and competence, he was certainly describing someone who could measure up in spades to the awesome task of the presidency.

The one thing that I did not feel in listening to Bill, however, was that “vision thing”.  I was deeply impressed with his ability, and his articulation of his wife’s ability, but I was not inspired to the extent that I have been by listening to Senator Obama.  I think Oprah is right - Obama has something special.

This is not to say that the Illinois Senator has a claim on victory as of this moment.  For the issue of his experience, or lack thereof, is one deserving debate and dialogue.

If only Mrs. Clinton can summon up a vision of equal force - or if only we the American public could benefit from a candidate who comprises both the adroitness of a Bill and Hillary Clinton, the experience of a Senator Joe Biden, the vision of a Senator Barack Obama - and perhaps a dash of the commanding focus and strength of Rudy Guiliani with respect to dealing with our adversaries.

If I were advising the Clintons, I would advise them to inspire more from a place of vision.  If I were advising Senator Obama, I’d counsel more of the same with respect to vision and inspiration, but balancing that with greater immersion in concrete issues.  Joe Biden, it seems to me, can benefit more with an articulation of the ”vision thing.”  And Rudy?  He ought to balance the bellicose stance with reminding us as Americans of who we are, and where we’re going. 

A people who know who they are and where they’re headed is the nation’s greatest source of strength.

There is of course no perfect presidential candidate.  Each contender has his or her strengths and weaknesses.  In my article, “Candidates’ Style Vs. Substance: A Media Trainer’s Scorecard,” published on July 2^nd by PR Week Magazine (see url below*), I pronounced Hillary Clinton the debate winner in the field of Democratic candidates, based on my media trainer’s perception that she led or ran high in a number of the ten determinants of style delineated in the article. 

Among Senator Clinton’s strongest suits were: projecting confidence; ability to connect; ability to articulate/communicate; perception of centeredness and balance; intelligence; perception of strength.  She either led or was a close second in these categories.  Interestingly, Senator Joe Biden scored high in these categories too, which leads one to suspect that the one category not covered in the article – name recognition – can be a linchpin determinant when thrown into the mix.  It should have been the eleventh determinant. 

Yet Senator Clinton, while she was the winner, and now apparently seems headed for the nomination of her party, is not the perfect candidate.  Senator Obama took the lead in three other determinants:  heart and humanity (based on his inspirational stance of projecting a new paradigm of rising above dualism and being an advocate of inclusionism, unity and hope); likeability; and wisdom (heart combined with intelligence.)  The perception of these attributes of Obama may not be enough to carry him into the lead, at least among registered Democrats, but they have attracted many into his orbit.

What I found attractive in Joe Biden, from a media trainer’s perspective, is that he clearly represents a man of great experience, especially in foreign affairs.  That came across through his strength of message in this area, and his having projected stylistic strengths that came close to Senator Clinton’s, including self-confidence, intelligence and strength. But lack of name recognition is clearly one of the good Senator’s handicaps.

Today, on CNN, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican, gave what I thought was a tour de force in his interview with Wolf Blitzer.  What struck me about Mr. Huckabee’s performance was that he maintained a cheerful disposition, deflecting harsh criticisms of him by his opponents without going into a personal attack mode.  On the contrary, when Mr. Blitzer quoted tough criticsm by Conservative Phyllis Schlafly, questioning the authenticity of Mr. Huckabee’s conservatism, the former Governor simply and politely suggested Ms. Schlafly was misinformed, and then praised and acknowledged her for her strong and consistent track record as a Conservative.

When other criticisms were drawn about his stance against abortion and his support for Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, Huckabee was not apologetic.  Rather than get into the mire of the debate on the latter, he simply presented his belief in God and the Bible, and with a sincerity that was admirable (irrespective of one’s own conviction on the matter). On abortion, he made a strong case in opposition to it which was perceived as heartfelt, that all human life must be treated with reverence, including life in the womb.  Again, I think that people of another point-of-view, if they were fair, would not have disrespected Mr. Huckabee’s sincerity in expositing his belief on this issue.

What was appealing about Mr. Huckabee’s performance was that he came across as a man with a strongly held inner value system, and yet not arrogantly so.  Moreover, he presented himself as someone who could listen to criticism without getting personal of his opponents’ expressions.  To me, this conveys character.  “Character” is a quality that can only be shown or evidenced by strength of conviction combined with a tolerance for others’ views, and by action.  With respect to the former, Mr. Huckabee seems to potentially be such a person.

In my July 2^nd article, former Mayor Guiliani seems to have been underrated.  While he had decent scores in some categories, I did not perceive him as the winner.  Instead, former Governors Romney and Huckabee came out on top.  I think here, again, as Rudy is as of now the front runner among the Republican field of candidates, “name recognition” turns out to be a linchpin determinant.  The other strength that the former New York mayor plays on is his strong and hawkish position against terrorism and the Iranian threat.  That is a strength that obviously plays well among a goodly number of Americans, and Senator Clinton seems to be taking a strong stance here as well.  Part of the reason for this may be political so as to neutralize Mayor Guiliani’s criticisms in this area were he to be her opponent in a national election (and it appears this is moving in that direction).

So who’s the ideal candidate in this current presidential political campaign?  It’s clear.  It’s Clinton-Obama-Biden-Huckabee, and perhaps with a dash of Rudy Guiliani thrown in. Since there is no such “animal,” Americans can hope that as the campaign gels into one with two major candidates on either side, that these individuals will either grow by cultivating and integrating aspects of themselves that had been more submerged – or bring to their respective tickets Vice Presidential choices that are more developed in those areas of lack.

* July 2nd PR Week Magazine article can be found at: http://www.mediamavens.com/Articles/ArticlesbyMike/PRWeed_USAJul207.pdf

Al Gore won The Nobel Peace Prize today. The Nobel Committee’s decision was a powerful acknowledgement of the urgency of global warming, a crisis that evidences itself by severe glacial meltdowns in the polar ice caps, and with many scientists predicting irreversible rises in ocean levels that in 50 years or less could mean catastrophe for the world’s coastal cities.

The announcement, flashed around the world today, means something else – and perhaps something connoting a certain hopefulness. It reminds me of the sense of global coming together that occurred when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, and humanity palpably and viscerally experienced the words that came out of Mr. Armstrong’s mouth upon putting his foot upon the lunar soil: “That was one small step for a man – one giant leap for Mankind.”

An evolutionary next step for our species. Neil Armstrong, in that one act, represented every human being becoming extraterrestrial. Our species had lifted itself to another orb, to experience a view of the wondrous blue ONE planet – Mother Earth - that birthed it. Which was more miraculous – a sense of humankind reaching another level on its evolutionary trail – or the profound realization that our home is one world, without boundaries – proof beyond words that our separation is an illusion.

The announcement about Mr. Gore’s Nobel Prize brings to the fore, in a different yet similar way, the consciousness that we live on one planet, that we are one human family, and that the peril we face environmentally is OUR problem – not an American problem, or a European problem, or an Asian or African problem, or a Republican or Democratic problem - but our problem.

This awareness has the potential to bring humanity together, to work together, to help heal the planet, and to bring it back into balance. Technology, and communications through technology has already been creating a convergence on our planet. Humans’ ascent into outer space was one major starting point. The Internet as one powerful expression of this coming together is another. Television via satellite has created still another. A global warming crisis and a prestigious award to highlight the challenge for all of us takes it a step further. The potential exists for increased dialogue and understanding of our common problems, of our common humanity, and for a decrease in tensions that separate and divide us.

The potential exists. But there is a danger. Without a rise in an individual and universal spiritual experience of the human heart – without more kindness and cooperation – the evolution we experience technologically can take us into directions too terrible to contemplate.

We need to work together creatively and shed our competitive tribal instincts while honoring our cultural, religious, ethnic and gender diversities. We need to experience a growing reverence for all life, to work towards uplifting communication – including communications in public relations and advertising that honors and upholds a universal value system that reveres our planet as the precious home it is for all of us – and that the beauty of life, and the great positive potential for creative growth inherent in life – can be that which guides us and sustains us.

That, it seems to me, is one of the key signs of hopefulness in the Nobel Prize Committee’s announcement today.