PR Straight Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question looms and begs probing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.