PR Straight Talk

SunSentinel

An Outraged Citizen Speaks: Animal adoptions not a top county priority

Mike Schwager |

For any who has made a dog or cat a member of your family, you know how endearing and valued they become. Yet across our nation, millions of healthy, adoptable dogs and cats are killed each year at our county shelters. This is true as well in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties. Here in Broward, in 2008, 10,339 animals were euthanized. The numbers were similar in 2007 and 2006.The core of the problem is an unspoken attitude of irreverence for the lives of these precious, feeling creatures. The Animal Care and Regulation Division is in actuality a disposal unit for the elimination of these endearing animals.  Until they are killed, and due to this disposal attitude, many are cramped in small cages, lack exercise, are not touched, and the food is awful. Virtually all develop kennel cough. No serious effort is made to draw traffic to the two Broward facilities, allowing for adoptions to increase. Few know their locations. Despite pleas for large, colorful signage leading to these places, they’ve been ignored, as have past offers to provide free publicity. It is heartbreaking to watch TV public service spots run by the ASPCA depicting the plight of shelter animals - and to recognize that ACARD does nothing of this kind.

Mike Schwager is a resident of Fort Lauderdale.  Websites:  www.mediamavens.com,www.Enrichment.com, www.TVtraining.tv, www.PRStraightTalk.com.

The above OpEd was recently published in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.  It is short due to word length limitation.  There was much more to write.  Healthy, adoptable, sweet and vulnerable dogs dragged in terror to the killing rooms, knowing what awaits them; lying on tables, shaking and terrified, as “normal, reasonable” people inject them with poison.  Their dead but warm bodies thrown into trash bags and disposal bins.  In Broward County, 10,000 killed every year by “normal, reasonable” people.  In Miami/Dade, the official count is 21,000 - but the true number is higher.  This atrocity must end.  More - much more - must be done to end the kill policies in these counties and other counties across America.  Money must be invested in aggressive marketing/PR campaigns that boost traffic, and adoptions to these places.  Political officials feign concern, but in truth do not care, for the numbers are not declining, and in the present economic Recession, the numbers are actually increasing.  These unconditionally loving creatures have no voice.  We ARE their voices.  They are our comfort, our connection to pure Being - and we must NOT treat them without reverence or respect.  If you are in Broward County, Florida, please sign a Petition of Protest to the Broward Commissioners at this site:  www.CompassionateAnimalFriendsofBroward.org.

Read the book, “Redemption” by Nathan Winograd and learn that it IS possible to convert kill disposal units into no-kill adoption facilities.  Thank you.  God Bless you, and let God work through us to bless them!

[This page is dedicated to my beloved late sister Heddy Schwager McKenna, who was a devout lover of animals, and who understood their purity and connection to Divine Source].

In a moving tribute to his father, Senator Edward Kennedy, Ted Kennedy Jr., said that one of the greatest lessons his father  passed on, was to never give up.  With tears, he shared the story of how, when he was 12 years old, his father helped him climb an icy hill, even though Ted, Jr. had lost a leg to cancer.

“He held me around my waist, and we slowly made it to the top,” Ted Jr. said.  “He said, ‘I know you can do it. We’re going to climb that hill together if it takes us all day… And I knew I was going to be OK…He taught me that nothing is impossible.”

Of all the extraordinary eulogies at Senator Kennedy’s funeral today, there was no moment more poignant than this; and no greater testament to the Senator’s indomitable spirit and big heart.

Senator Ted Kennedy - a great human being, and a great legislator.  As Vice President Biden said at the Senator’s Memorial Service at the JFK Library, “It was never about him.  It was always about YOU.”    President Obama accurately ascribed to him “A man whose name graces nearly 1,000 laws, and who penned more than 300 laws himself.”

And from many who worked with him in the Senate, Democrat and Republican alike, “He always kept his word.”  A key ingredient of character - and of success in relationships, both personal and professional.

God Bless You, Ted Kennedy!

I once handled a book for Harvey Mackay, who had asked me to publicize a manuscript called “Swim With The Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive.”  Harvey was a first-time unknown author, an envelope manufacturer, and I needed to call upon many creative approaches in promoting him.  Fortunately for me, Harvey is an extraordinary individual and a great natural salesman (I say that in the best sense of that word) - and representing him was a delight.  He was incredibly energized and never said “no” to any media placements I put in front of him.  I remember once when I landed an interview for him with a syndicated columnist in Cleveland, and all that was required was a phone interview (Harvey is based in Minneapolis) - Harvey not only flew to Cleveland to meet the columnist…he had lunch with her and the meeting translated into not one column item, but a series of syndicated column items.  Harvey had impressed her that much.  I imagine some of you may recall that that book, “Swim With The Sharks…” became a mega-bestseller, including nearly a year on the New York Times Bestseller List.

One of the many placements arranged for Harvey was with the Asssociated Press (AP) Bureau out of Minneapolis.  That was really the first major national placement, because it ran on the AP’s “A” Wire, which is the national wire that goes to hundreds and sometimes thousands of newspapers, both nationally and internationally.  That single placement became the engine for more major media pickup, and the rest is history.  It showed me the power of the wire services.  AP, Reuters and UPI are the primary such services.

Years later, when I represent a humanitarian NGO, CURE International, which builds and runs teaching hospitals for disabled children in Third World countries, an extraordinary event was about to occur at one of their hospitals in the Dominican Republic.  A baby girl, Rebecca, had been born deformed with a vestige incomplete head connected to her actual head.  The vestigial head needed to be removed, and that surgery would be a first in medical history.  Teams of surgeons flew in to join the Dominican surgeons, and I knew that this was a story that had great media potential.  It was a risky surgery too, and our hearts went out for little Rebecca and her family.  I first planted a seed with Reuters out of Miami, which ran the story in advance of the event.  The pickup on that story was huge, and created a great deal of curiosity with the press.  All the broadcast network and national cable networks positioned themselves to cover the story.  I then notified the local AP reporter out of Santo Domingo, who received permission from his editor in New York to cover the actual operation, and that story ran in thousands of newspapers.  [I had simultaneously worked with a medical reporter from USA Today, for whom I arranged a phone conference with the doctors in advance of the surgery, and that national newspaper ran over a full page, with graphics, of the surgery].

Sadly, Baby Rebecca died in that surgery, though she contributed enormously to the advancement of medical science in understanding that abberation - and helped future babies with a similar condition - to survive.

AP then ran a lengthy story about the tragic outcome; as did Reuters and USA Today.  Naturally both the pre-surgical story and the post-event story ran in thousands of newspapers nationwide and internationally; and broadcast network and cable tv newscasts did the same. 

Most recently, I represented Dr. Peter Langman, head of psychology at KidsPeace: The National Center for Kids In Crisis.  He had written a book called “Why Kids Kill:  Inside the Minds of School Shooters”.  It was an analysis of the mental/emotional conditions of the Columbine killers.  I knew that a major story with AP, as well as a story in USA Today, would do much to give life to this book.  I worked with the local AP Reporter in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, where Dr. Langman was situated.  The seeds were planted early, and because this was a very busy reporter, I knew that I would need to maintain contact with him on a fairly regular basis.  Then, a couple of weeks before the anniversary of Columbine, the reporter interviewed Dr. Langman.  He brought a photographer.  The interview was in-depth.  I sensed it would be a long story; and indeed it became just that.  The outcome?  Over two thousand newspapers picked the story up.  Virtually overnight, the book had been placed on the radar screen of millions of people.

In fact, I had also cultivated contact with a reporter from USA Today, again, well ahead of the Columbine anniversary.  USA Today not only published their story on the front page of the paper, they also had a separate long book review published on the same day.  “Why Kids Kill,” which had barely received any attention until the AP and USA Today stories, had jumped from practically zero on Amazon.com’s list, to  Number 1 on Amazon’s bestseller list for crime books.

All of this is to say that the wire services carry great power and impact.  Look for opportunities to work not only with AP out of New York or Washington, but with the local AP (or Reuters) bureaus in the locales where the story is taking place.

Walter Cronkite passed away last week.  I’ll admit it.  I hate to use the word “died.”  He was so much a part of our culture.  So much an anchor for us as this nation moved through tumultuous times:  World War II, Korea, the Cold War, Civil Rights, the Moon landing, the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., and Bobby Kennedy, the elections of American presidents, the Vietnam War…and so much more.  He had an avuncular style, he was centered as the anchorman of the CBS Evening News, he exhuded confidence and concern.  I would say even more, he conveyed the sense that he cared.  He cared about our country, the principles and values upon which it stood, its journey through time and its history.  His patriotism was genuine but not in any way jingoistic.  One had the sense with Walter that he viewed the American experience as an ongoing narrative with meaning, with some kind of unfolding purpose that had no end point - and that he viewed our nation as a positive force in the world.  Having said that, one could sense his disappointment and even pain when things did not go well.  Vietnam, which he eventually saw as a failure (and which brought Lyndon Johnson to say, “If I’ve lost Walter, I’ve lost middle America”).  The assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby, and more.  And he exulted with joy and ebullience when we landed a man on the Moon.

Walter Cronkite brought a sense of comfort and stability to the American psyche.  Whatever the news of the day, with its ups and downs, Walter conveyed reassurance that the Republic was moving forward.  He conveyed a sense of hope in the future because he embodied the American story and the American dream.  He was a kind of glue that held things together - that held us together.

In my view, he was the greatest news anchor in American television news history.  He carried a Spirit that was contained in his very energy. There was no one like him.  And though he may have politically leaned on the liberal side in his personal views - I think he was probably a moderate - he really never showed it on-the-air.  And yet, more than 20 years after his retirement, he is known to have expressed the view that we were missing something in the war on terrorism.   He in no way condoned the ferocity and cruelty of Islamic extremism - for he was a witness to many ferocious ideologies - from Nazism in Germany to the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia - but he was deeply concerned that as an affluent country we were not sensitive enough to the plight of the poor in the developing world.  I saw and heard him say that if he was a parent ensnared in the trap of deeply entrenched poverty in one of those countries, seeing his children hungry and feeling frustrated and anguished about being unable to help them, that he would feel resentment towards those in the West whose prosperity was so self-evident on the television shows and movies that came from America.  He talked about the poor being fodder for the terrorists’ agendas. 

What fascinated me about this is that it confirmed for me that Walter had empathy for people, even with the objectivity he presented as a news anchor and reporter.  He cared.  He cared about America and the American people - but his caring reached out to people and peoples everywhere.   He had seen the Earthrise from the videos that came back from the Appollo missions.  We were one planet - and our species, the human species, was one species.  Walter’s vision was global, and that global vision was not inconsistent with his love for his country as real and deep.  As a great observer of events, he saw connections - he saw the relationships between those events. 

The greatness about Walter Cronkite was that as a professional he was objective.  As a human being, he cared.  He gave a damn.

Walter had a commentator on the CBS Evening News - Eric Sevareid.  Eric was a giant too, for like Walter his view was wide and deep.  He saw the little things, but like Walter, he also saw the larger picture.

There is no one on television today of the stature of Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid.  The void is real, and hopefully it will not take too many years for that void to be filled.

[NOTE:   Also viewable at - http://www.enrichment.com/content/remedy-china-reversing-cancer-cell-growth]

There is a remedy from China that users report is putting their cancers into remission.

The remedy is called “Haelan 951” (pronounced “Heelan”). It has had a dearth of publicity to-date – yet it is extraordinary, and worth consideration. Haelan 951 is approved by the FDA as a food substance. It is undergoing clinical trials as a remedy for cancer and is not yet officially FDA approved as a medicine. For this reason, the company that imports the product into the USA cannot yet officially state that it is a cure or remedy for cancer. But wherever clinical trials are held, the findings are extremely positive.

Interviews with people who have taken Haelan 951 for cancer, shows that in many cases it works by boosting the immune system up to 700%, making it virtually impossible for cancer cells to grow or spread. After these interviews, I recommended to a family member with both chronic lymphatic leukemia and the diagnosis of an aggressive breast cancer tumor, that she take the Haelan. Having done so, she went into remission after a few months from both the CLL and breast cancer. Eight years later, she is still in remission.

Haelan 951 is a super nutritious, fermented soybean protein beverage that has shown remarkable results in the treatment of cancer. The bean is grown in China where it is also processed. It is imported in bottles by The Haelan Company in Washington State. The beverage contains large quantities of single cell proteins and their metabolites produced by a specially patented fermentation process. This process hydrolyzes many of the soybean proteins into amino acids and compounds that are rich in nitrogen and fermentation metabolites of the naturally occurring isoflavones such as genistein, protease inhibitors, saponins, phytosterols and inositol hexaphosphate compounds in soybeans.

The majority of those I interviewed reported they had gone into remission – and some of them reported that they did not do conventional treatment, but only the Haelan.

Colorado-based medical researcher Donna Sage, who conducted extensive interviews and research with patients and physicians on difficult cancer cases that had dramatic turnarounds after taking Haelan 951, wrote several articles for Well-Being Journal, including a well-documented piece in the January/February 1999 issue entitled, “Soy Nutrient That Reverses Cancer Cell Growth.” (http://www.haelanproducts.com/well%20being%20journal.htm). Prior to her research, Ms. Sage was a skeptic about the beneficial effects of Haelan. She now believes that Haelan is a potent and viable anti-cancer remedy.

More research can be found at the Haelan Products Company website: http://www.haelanproducts.com/research.htm

One clinical trial of note was a study supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, and conducted by the Divisions of Medical Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. A 56 year-old woman with rapidly progressive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer experienced remission and entered into a phase of prolonged disease stabilization upon initiating self-directed treatment with Haelan 951, a commercially-available soy beverage.

The case report of the study states: “We present a case of a woman with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who has had asymptomatic, stable disease for nine months on Haelan 951.” The study was first published on May 27, 2005

For serious cases, Haelan is taken initially for two or three months at a bottle (8 ounces a day) – perhaps more. Four ounces in the morning, four ounces at night before bed.

After the initial bottle or more a day, one goes on maintenance, usually an ounce in the morning and an ounce at night, indefinitely. The taste is not great though one gets used to it.

More information is available in several languages at www.Cancer-Disarmed.com

Michael Jackson was an artistic genius - and like many artistic geniuses of his calibre - he had a very sensitive inner child which in his case had become wounded by an abusive father, and the absence of a normal childhood.  Michael was used and manipulated by many barracuda types in his life - managers and financial advisors who were not only interested in cashing in on his mega-success - but people who did not truly care for him as a person.  He was surrounded by people who feigned caring about him, but they were disingenous - whether we’re talking about plastic surgeons, M.D.’s who overmedicated him, or close consultants including publicists.

Michael did have the wisdom to occasionally turn to spiritual teachers like Deepak Chopra and Rabbi Shmuley - but he did not have a close inner circle of centered, caring people who cared more about HIM than his image.  These were people who feigned concern, but their real motivation was monetary self-enrichment.

In authentic public relations, the “image” is an extension of the true person - the true being.  Michael’s image was tarnished by the failure of close confidantes who might have helped him work on his demons with expert counseling, and help him disassociate his conflicts from his true artistic self, allowing him to see himself for the great, caring and artistic person he truly was.

Instead, Michael’s conflicted self and unconscious desire for punishment - since the punishment he endured from his father as a child was the “price” he was made to believe was necessary for success - allowed terrible people to later come into his life, which exacerbated the poor choices he made, and his image.  Even this may have been exacerbated by an on-stage incident that burned his hair and scalp, and set in motion antidotes for the excruciating pain he experienced, as well as plastic surgeries that went too far.  It is also my belief that Michael was not a child molester, as echoed by his friends Deepak Chopra and Chopra’s son, and Donald Trump. 

If a wise public relations practitioner had come into his life, understanding his personal struggle and physical pain, and had become a true friend of Michael’s, working with him to gain permission to bring wise and caring people into his inner circle, this kind of support might have changed Michael’s course, may have prevented the myriad of crises Michael confronted, and supported an image that would have been truer to the extremely talented artist, shining being and spirit-filled, uplifting entertainer Michael Jackson surely was.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote an important piece, published on April 8th, entitled, “Humanity Even For NonHumans”.  Cudos to him for bringing the suffering - and rights - of farm animals - to the spotlight.  In his blog on the same topic, I addressed a kindred issue - the suffering of shelter animals.  Here’s that comment, posted by The Times:

Dear Mr. Kristoff:

Thank you so much for this important contribution to raising consciousness about the plight of farm animals.

The late great Dr. Albert Schweitzer said: “Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.”

Another related very important issue is the inhumane treatment of dogs and cats at so many animal shelters across the country. Here in Broward County, Florida, at the Animal Care & Regulation Division’s two animal shelters run by the Broward County Commissioners, 10,000 dogs, puppies, cats and kittens are euthanized each year. The vast majority of them are healthy and adoptable. The core of the problem is an unspoken but very real attitude of irreverence for the lives of these precious, feeling creatures. “ACARD” or “Animal Control” as it is known, is in actuality a disposal unit for the elimination - killing - of these animals.

Until they are killed, and due to this disposal attitude, their treatment is abominable - many are crunched in too small cages, making it impossible for them to move about; too many are not given the exercise they vitally need; they cannot be touched, thus lack the tactile experience all living creatures need for emotional and physical well-being; food is awful. Virtually all of the animals develop kennel cough, which can lead to pneumonia. A sweet Yorkie I recently adopted was near death with pneumonia.

Furthermore, no real effort is made to bring traffic to these denizens of death, allowing for adoptions to increase. Few know its location (the main facility is near the Ft. Lauderdale Airport). Despite my past urgings for large and colorful signings leading to the place, please have been ignored. Offers to provide free publicity (I am a media relations specialist), which would include public service spots on radio and television, articles in newspapers, stories on radio and tv - these offers have been ignored.

I am the son of Holocaust survivors; and I tell you that facilities like Animal Care and Regulation in Broward County is much like an Auschwitz. There is no regard for the lives or feelings of these dogs and cats - and they are truly unconditionally loving and feeling beings who only seek to be treated in a humane and kind manner. “Kindness” is not a word within the vocabulary of the uncaring bureaucrats and politicians responsible for this dreadful institution.

To make matters worse, they feign concern - but to see the actions that take place - and the gross inhumanity that exists there - this concern is clearly nothing more than a subterfuge.

In 2006, when I first became aware of conditions at ACARD, I wrote an article for The Best Friends Network. It describes the cruelty at this institution, and I am sad to report that the essence of the story has remain unchanged. That article can be found at:

http://network.bestfriends.org/news/postdetail.aspx?np=7511

A website I created, http://www.CompassionateAnimalFriendsofBroward.org also describes the critical situation, and provides an opportunity to electronically sign a Petition to the Broward Commissioners, demanding change.

Kindness must extend to all living beings who share this planet with us. We are all part of the Great Circle of Life. We are all connected. We all live, breathe and feel. We must advocate for them, for they cannot advocate for themselves. But their purity, and the unconditional love they give to us, stands as a call for us to act, to act now and to act with compassion.

VALUES IN PR

This is a page you may not ordinarily see on a public relations site.  Many p.r. people are “invisible” when it comes to publicly taking a stand about their own values and what they believe in – or don’t believe in.  They hold a position of seeming neutrality in this area.

For some, this may be to maximize the field of potential clients they can attract, and consequently, to maximize the potential for doing business. The potential negative consequence of this decision is that it has created the perception of some p.r. professionals as “flacks” and “ambulence chasers.”  

For others, withholding a statement of values and beliefs is necessary in order to spotlight their clients’ values. They rightly hold that the mission of public relations professionals is to create compelling communications programs on behalf of their clients’ positions – not their own.  They believe that the most effective p.r. representation, therefore, is to represent virtually any kind of client, while remaining personally detached from that client’s point-of-view (even while exhuberantly presenting that view to editors and producers).   Some of the professionals in this latter grouping may even believe that by adhering to this position, they support the constitutional right of freedom of speech (on behalf of their clients).

While I believe there is merit to this latter position, if it is sincerely held, I come down in a slightly different place.  I believe that, for me, the times we live in make it necessary to enunciate a basic personal and professional declaration of “What I believe and what I value.”   For while I see myself as an advocate for my client’s core values and fundamental self-interests, as a citizen of my country and the world – like yourself - I also see myself as an advocate of core values that guide the decisions I make about who I  represent.

The first experience I can remember as a public relations professional that layed track for this position was just prior to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylania.  I was a young rookie, working for a major public relations agency (my first p.r. job).  I was asked to be part of a strategic brainstorming meeting with a new client, a major corporation involved in energy and electronics.  The client informed us that its nuclear power plants were one hundred percent safe from any mishaps, and asked us to craft a communications program that boldly enunciated that position.

When I raised my hand and asked the question, “Can you back up that position with sound scientific proof and evidence?” - I noticed that some of the more senior staffers in that meeting seemed to cringe, annoyed I had asked this question. I also suggested that a “crisis media plan” be developed in advance in case the client was confronted with some sudden catastrophe which required damage control.  I explained to the client that it was necessary to take a “devil’s advocate” stance, in order to build a stronger campaign which anticipated the tough questions that would inevitably be posed by adversaries of nuclear power plants, or in case of human error “in spite of  the client’s insistence that nothing could go wrong.”

The client “laughed me down,” saying that the proof was so “self-evident,” it wasn’t necessary to further research the issue or to prepare for a problem.

Two months later, the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred. That plant was owned by this particular client.  When the media tried to approach the client for a statement, it took days before the client was ready to make an intelligent statement to the press, let alone answer tough questions.

It was at this moment that I realized four very important things:

(1)    It is the public relations professional’s responsibility to help the client anticipate problems in advance – and counsel the client on how to deal with      problems when they occur.

(2)    Clients can make mistakes, and should admit mistakes when they occur.

(3)  A good public relations professional must have the courage to follow his or her gut instincts and intuition, as long as they are honest and sincere – even in the face of raising questions the client may find unappealing.

(4)    Public relations agencies and professionals should think twice before representing clients they consciously know have services, products or ideas that may undermine the quality-of-life or higher public good, irrespective of the fees that client may be willing to pay the agency or professional.

In subsequent years, I developed a list of such “value statements” that ultimately turned into a kind of credo.  Here’s the rest:

*    Be open to representing clients which have services and products that minimally pose no hazards to public safety.  Just as a potential client will investigate whether  you as a public relations professional are right for them, you have every right to investigate whether they are right for you.

*    The world is in a critical stage in its development.  It needs advocates who embrace the values of both the American Declaration of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…advocates who are  willing to take a stand for the enrichment of life – and public relations advocates who represent   clients that enhance the quality of life with a view of life’s sacredness…clients that enrich the environment, human health and well-being, human rights (and animal rights)…clients that promote the advancement of human economic, creative and social potential, especially children’s potential…clients that advance human understanding, tolerance and respect      for the richness of, and differences  in, cultures, religions, genders, races, ethnicities and ideas…clients who if they       advance technology, also advance the progress of the human heart.

*    Take a stand for the Earth and the “wholeness” and intelligence of Nature.  Take a stand for the advancement of world culture while equally respecting the  uniqueness and sacredness of every individual human being, and the healthy, enriching uniqueness of  regional and national cultures.

*    Be suspicious of any group, organization or individual who believe they, he or she have “all the answers” or who wish to impose or project these  “answers” onto others.  Veer instead towards those who present creative solutions to specific problems; and judge these solutions on the basis as to whether they expand human human happiness and fulfillment

*    Consider groups, organizations or individuals who have creative or innovative ideas, services or products that enrich human life; or that have winning ideas, services or products that can help empower the poor or heal the sick.

*    Represent businesses that conduct themselves ethically, that deliver products or services that help, and don’t harm; that are businesses that invest in their people and contribute to the health and well-being of the communities in which they do business, both domestically and internationally; and that are sensitive to  the promotion of the human and civil rights of women and minorities, especially among their own employees and the customers they serve.

He was clear.  He was concise.  He was unambiguous.  He was certain about the response to evil (Islamic fascism) in the world - “defeat it.”  He was relaxed.  He could be light and funny.  He was a superb storyteller.  He spoke unpretentiously about the courage required as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and the painful but necessary moral choice to refuse release while those like his friend, detained two years longer than he, remained imprisoned.

This was John McCain at his best:  passionate, defender of the Constitution, patriot, hero, a man whose story revealed a dedication to higher causes beyond self-interest, a man clearly committed to the safety and advancement of the United States and the principles it rests on.

Most of all, this was a man who wreaked honesty and integrity.  His response and stand on virtually every question and issue raised by Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church was unambiguous - and seemed to rest on deep conviction and solid values.

This came through particularly in his response to the question about abortion - he’s pro-Life; and his understanding of the complexity of the issue and his ability to nuance it based on compassion for those suffering with life-wrenching illnesses such as Lou Gehrig’s disease and Alzheimers, revealed itself in his advocacy of stem cell research (while pointing to skin cells as an imminent alternative solution).

The brilliance of the “performance” cannot be understated.  For in a one hour interview, the character and intelligence of John McCain came through…compellingly, convincingly.   It was clear that this is a man who as President would, to the best of his ability, both defend our democratic - small “d” rights (as a prisoner-of-war, he pointed out, he experienced their absence), while balancing that with the staunch defense of America from terrorism and the radical Islamic threat.  My belief that McCain would do his best to protect civil rights through this delicate maneuvering is that he so forcefully criticized the use of torture as a means to extract confessions from possible terrorists.  He was a victim of torture in Vietnam.

He was equally compelling - whether one agreed with him or not - on his stand on energy solutions - offshore drilling and the development of the fullest range of energy alternatives.  He was also brief but persuasive in his exhortation to relieve all Americans of higher taxes.

What was exceptionally significant about the forum - a one hour conversation with each candidate - Obama and McCain - with the same questions put to each individual on the same stage and in exactly the same structured setting - is that the electorate had an  opportunity to compare each  man and each man’s character and mindset - with unprecedented clarity. 

Obama was typically eloquent and cerebral - but my own impression of the man was that he was more tenuous, and less compelling as a leader.  I sometimes had to ask myself, what did he really say?  There was more ambiguity in his responses.

While I do not agree with Senator McCain on all the issues, I was left feeling that I would trust America and her safety more to this man, than his opponent - and in spite of his opponent’s often idealistic rhetoric.

What was especially gratifying was to give each candidate one hour, in a conversational format.  That really allowed the viewer to experience the fuller depth and range of each person in terms of character, style, depth of conviction and values, centeredness and qualities of leadership.

Prior to this event, McCain had been a disappointment - but clearly this forum was ideal for him - and a gift to the American public - enabling them to see what in my opinion was the better candidate.  He may not read a teleprompter well - but he can articulate his views and articulate them well in a more impromptu, less contrived setting.  The man reveals himself.

McCain won from the standpoint of more effective communications style, depth of values, character and certainty as a potential leader.

For the first time, I thought, “McCain can win!”

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!