PR Straight Talk

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.

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.

Undercover video released by the Humane Society, and just shown on national tv, of sick cows in a meat processing plant, just prior to slaughter, made national headlines – but not out of compassion for these poor suffering animals.  The focus of concern by the news media was about the meat of sick animals entering the food supply.

When I saw the footage this morning, of animals too sick to stand, stumbling helplessly on the slaughterhouse floor, and lifted mercilessly and callously on a fork about to be taken for slaughter, I realized that my long interest in becoming a vegetarian had been realized. Where is our compassion?  I speak not only for the sickly cows, but the healthy ones too.  These are feeling, thinking beings.  The cow is a benign animal.  But the fate of tens of millions each year, who suffer by never seeing the light of day, in closed warehouses and cramped conditions, only to be cruelly slaughtered in the end – is a mark of a society and a culture without feeling, without compassion, without understanding or caring of the suffering of these docile creatures.

Mahatma Gandhi always felt that animals should be protected from torture and cruelty.  “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals,” he said.

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives,” wrote humanitarian and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

Where is the national campaign and the voices of outrage that decry the suffering and cruelty of such animals – that decry their suffering in the manner in which they are housed and treated, and in the fact that they are slaughtered in inhumane and merciless ways?  Ultimately, where is the campaign that calls for an end to the slaughter of cows, period?  Where is the campaign that is rooted in a true embrace of reverence for life – all life?  Where is the campaign that decries the suffering and slaughter of pigs in a similar manner?  The campaign that decries the inhumane caging of chickens who live out their lives in cages without room to move in? 

The list goes on and on.  Has anyone ever considered that the pain and suffering we inflict on all these creatures, when ingested into our own systems, transforms into our own pain and suffering?  Think about it. 

This irreverence of the lives of animals extends to the treatment of dogs and cats in so many of this country’s County shelters –  killing institutions dedicated to the “euthanasia” of beautiful, healthy and adoptable dogs, cats, puppies and kittens, instead of a dedication to increasing community awareness, traffic and adoptions as our highest priority? 

What kind of a society is this that ends the lives of creatures who come into the world to give us the unconditional love we so sorely need?   What kind of a commentary is it about us that we so devalue these precious lives?  Is it any wonder that so much cruelty abounds in man’s treatment of his fellows?

If you are reading this and are moved in any way, reach out to animal advocacy groups dedicated to reversing all of this cruelty and suffering.  If you can’t find a group, start one yourself.  Get help from local public relations professionals who resonate with these sensitivities.  You can start by seeking them out on Craigslist.org – or by contacting the local PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) chapter in your city (www.prsa.org).

If the challenge seems uphill and insurmountable, remember the answer to the question posed in the Talmud:  “Where is the center of the world?” To which the response came, “Where each human being stands – there is the center of the world.” 

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.

Two postings ago, I wrote about the importance of being perceived as “real” and how this realness is conveyed through a candidate’s connection with his or her values and beliefs, and how “personality” is the prism through which  voters perceive not only the more superficial persona but these deeper attributes of self.

I also wrote that while I cannot teach a person how to be “real” - I can help facilitate a greater confidence about staying true to one’s core values.  This is true not only for political candidates, but anyone preparing for a media interview. 

The complication factor comes in when someone is preparing to act as spokesperson for his or her company or non-profit organization.  Here, they are not speaking solely for themselves, but for their organization.

Most media training workshops relate primarily to messaging.  The better ones help participants identify and learn to communicate essential communications objectives clearly, effectively and proactively.

In my 20 years of training executives about how to get their messages across, the one key area that has been more challenging to teach concerns presentational style, and more specifically, the “likeability” factor.

So…if you’re not a political candidate, but instead are speaking for your organization, are there tools you can use to enhance your likeability among viewers?  What if you are concerned you may not come across well?

While it is true that personality traits are inherent in the individual and not always conducive to pliability, the effects of the worst traits can be mitigated, at least in structured settings such as debates or television interviews.  Here are some points to consider:

“THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE…”

Most human beings consist of both light and shadow.  Those of us who’ve done some work on ourselves have learned about our darker sides.  Often stemming from negative belief systems and unresolved conflict formulated in our formative years, tools are available to begin the process of healing these more negative aspects of our emotions.

Whether that healing process is well underway or less so, we can use our intelligence to keep them contained, at least in a debate or interview setting.  Some careful introspection and feedback from family and friends will allow us to identify the more extreme negative emotional patterns, and to consciously counter them with more positive substitutes.

For example, if one is an interrupter, the common-sense solution is not to interrupt.  Here, during the training session, work must be focused on the art of listening.  If we consciously intend to listen to the interviewer, or to the debate opponent, waiting for this person to complete his or her thought before responding, allows us to be perceived as considerate.

If volatility and extreme reactivity is part of our nature, learning the art of unattachment from another person’s positionality, allows us to address the opposing point-of-view without being perceived as hostile, or uncentered.  Opposing points-of-view must be addressed with rational and intelligent argument, explaining their lack of common sense, workability and potential adverse impact on human lives. 

On all counts, avoid insults or invectives.  If your interviewer or debate opponent insults you or your organization, you can simply reply, “I take exception to the way you’ve characterized me, my intentions and my company.  Then, go on to explain your good intentions and actions, and the positive trackrecord of your company.  This way, you’ve put the spotlight on the other person’s poor behavior, and highlighted yourself as a person who takes the high road.

Equally important – never get personal with the interviewer or your debate opponent.  Deal with issues, with arguments, with the validity and sense of the statement put to you – but never hurtle diatribes at the person him or herself.  You simply will be seen as an ogre, and unlikable.

Humanize yourself and your organization.  People don’t want to hear cold statistics or facts with the simultaneous absence of expressions of humanness.  Use statistics sparingly only to emphasize the strength of the point you’re making.  Make more use of anecdotes.  Tell a story.  Make the story human.  If you’re illustrating the work of your company, talk about people, about your customers, and about your employees.  Cite examples.  Let the audience know about your work within the community, about charities you support, and why you support them.

A smile is worth a thousand words, and remember to smile when appropriate.  Also, use the first name of your interviewer, or opponent.  When you transmit a smile, or use someone’s first name, you’re energizing the empathic cord between you and your audience.  You become more likeable.

Use humor when appropriate.  Humor instantly can relieve the heaviness of a moment, and illustrate to others that you can lighten up and put things into perspective.  However, for some of us, humor doesn’t come naturally, so don’t apply it if it isn’t natural for you to do so.

Admit mistakes.  If you or your organization has done a misdeed, ‘fess up.  Admit the mistake.  Apologize for it. If someone has been hurt, express remorse.  Let your audience know you or your organization will learn from the mistake and never repeat it.   Many people are inclined to forgive, if given the opportunity.  Give it to them.  You’ll be seen as a better person for so doing.

Remember, you’re not really talking to your interviewer or debate opponent.  They’re just vehicles for your message.  You’re really talking to the thousands or millions of viewers or listeners on the other side of the television set or radio.  Remember that before you begin. 

Be yourself, but be your best self.  If you’re smart, don’t come across like a know-it-all.  If you’re impetuous, slow down and learn to think before you speak.  If you’re not a warm person, be conscious of ways to project more humanness.  Smile.  Use first names.  Use anecdotes.  If you’ve made a mistake, admit it and apologize.  Don’t overreact, and don’t get volatile. 

Think of someone you love or respect.   As you’re talking to an interviewer, think of someone you’ve been close to who you love and care about.  The interviewer will feel that positive emotion.  If you’re in a debate situation, think of someone you respect.  That respect will be felt by the debater, and possibly lessen the intensity of his or her opposition.  Most of all, the energy will be picked up by the audience – the people you’re really trying to reach.

Be strong, but allow some of the vulnerability you’ve been afraid to reveal, to present itself.  People will like you better for it.

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/