Midway through the Democratic National Convention, conventional wisdom maintained that there just wasn’t an awful lot of sizzle to the thing.    In fact after Monday night, it seemed downright vegetarian, with with hardly a speck of, what the politicos like to call “red meat,”  in sight.  

But in the Mile High City, the Democrats clearly opted for a gradual climb to cruising altitude, culminating with an acceptance speech Thursday night from Barrack Obama that virtually broke the political sound barrier.  It soared higher and flew faster than all that preceded it - a harmonious blend of expert craftsmanship in its drafting and a dynamic delivery.  Not since John Elway quaterbacked the Denver Broncos to championships on that very same field, had Americans witnessed such a clutch performance in that setting.   From a sheer speech making perspective, here’s why it was so good:

• Like an expert driver, Obama understands that you can’t be in overdrive the whole time.  This is an orator who utilizes all of his speaking gears, downshifting to a quieter, more thoughtful pace when empathizing with the struggles of average Americans, and then giving it the gas when going after John McCain.  It’s the variety of moods Obama shows you that helps keep the listeners watching the podium and not their watches.
• The worst thing a speechmaker can do is play it safe.  Great speeches always involve good calculated risks.  Taking it outdoors onto a grander stage before 80,000 people was certainly the first big roll of the dice.  But when Obama tackled three thorny social issues: Abortion, Gun Control and Gay Rights he also displayed an air of courage that sent a message that he’s playing this game to win, not playing it not to lose.
• This speech was groundbreaking in that it seemed to usher in a new era of conversational speechmaking.  True, most speechwriters are expert at writing for the ear and not the eye, but Obama’s acceptance speech brought that art to a new level.  At points you almost felt as though he was talking to you one-on-one walking down an empty corridor underneath the stadium. Brian Williams on MSNBC in fact made the observation that certain lines seemed as though they could have been written by Aaron Sorkin, creator of The American President and The West Wing.  But as conversational as it was, Obama’s speech was not dumbed down.  When was the last time you heard a word like “inextricably” in a major political speech?  In fact that word reminded me of an episode of The West Wing in which a high-priced political consultant warned President Jeb Bartlett that he shouldn’t use a word in a speech if the average American doesn’t know what it means.  Bartlett responded that giving people a reason to grab their dictionary and look it up was actually a good thing.

1)  Hillary Clinton - I’ve never been a huge fan of her oratory skills, or lack thereof, but I have to admit, she hit this one out of the park.  She delivered it flawlessly with a good sense of timing.  For instance, her line about the logic of Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities next week because they’re so hard to tell apart had a comedian’s flair for set-up and payoff.  ”The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suits” was another good line, as was “No way, no how, no McCain.”  But where Hillary excelled was showing a softer, less-strident side in recalling all the people she met in her campaigning who made a lasting impression on her. She embraced the power of the anecdote and it made that section of her speech memorable.  Asking a question that makes your audience do some immediate soul searching can often be an effective tool and last night was no exception.  When she asked her supporters, “were you really in this because of me,”  she gracefully implied that support based of her personality or gender isn’t good enough.

2)  Michele Obama - No one had more pressure on them to demonstrate a “likability factor” than Michelle Obama.  The stakes were high and she delivered in impressive fashion.  She came across both intelligent and articulate and warm and maternal.  The only noticeable flaw was that far too many of her sentences began with “you see,” which after a while stood out as a predictable pattern.  But overall, for a potential First Lady, the speech was a home run, only outdone by the expert staging of the virtual family hug in which the adorable Obama children joined their mother on stage to chat with their father via remote.

3)  Bill Clinton -  Two noticeable absences: excessive discussion of his favorite topic - himself, and the trademark, aw-shucks lip biting.  Those were two additions by subtraction in what was otherwise a masterfully delivered “on-message” speech that had to have been greeted at its conclusion by a huge collective sigh by the Obama camp.  Getting both Clintons to behave just the way you want them to on this grand a stage is no small feat.

4)  Mark Warner - In the negative column, the former Governor of Virginia, now candidate for the U.S. Senate from that same state, sounded like just that - a candidate stumping for himself.  The content was thoroughly forgettable, the delivery was one long drone with no peaks and valleys and his annoying habit of quickly licking his lips at the end of each sentence gave him the appearance of an amphibian stalking its next meal.  In overall appearance, Warner bears a frightening resemblance to G.D. Spradlin, the actor who portrayed the sleazy, corrupt Nevada Senator in The Godfather - Part II.  

I can hardly wait to start this all over again on Monday with the GOP in Minnesota.

The self-inflicted wound that results from making a verbal blunder these days seems so much deeper thanks to YouTube.  Before the days of gaffes-on-demand websites, two or three news cycles were usually enough to shove a person’s “regrettable choice of words” to the back of everyone’s mind.  If you happened to have the good fortune to time your dumb remark right before a bona fide banner headline event (international crises, domestic catastrophes and celebrities under arrest all qualify) chances are you were home free with little damage to your public image.  

Such was not the case back in January of 2007, when Delaware Senator Joe Biden launched into a stupefyingly stupid description of Barrack Obama that redefined the notion of a backhanded compliment, not to mention modern day racism.  In referring to his fellow Democrat (but at the time his rival in the primaries), Biden called Obama, “The first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”  I guess that makes Jesse Jackson a dumb, dirty and ugly guy who can’t put a decent sentence together.  Poor Joe - no big news story came along to help him bury this gaseous excretion from his brain.  Ultimately it exacerbated his flailing candidacy and Joe went home to Delaware to ponder just how costly his blunder would be.

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to Denver.  Biden proved that there is indeed a shelf life for controversial remarks, even with the guy who should have been most offended by them.  Instead of holding a grudge, Obama wiped the slate clean this weekend with his fellow Foreign Relations Committee member, formally selecting him as his running mate.   Perhaps Obama overlooked the January remark after realizing that Biden had what his ticket desperately needed: experience, foreign policy chops, and a GPS system that is now singularly programmed for John McCain’s jugular.  Oh, outwardly Biden may look all starched and statesmanly, but inside he has a Paullie Walnuts instinct for striking a clean, lethal blow with his adversaries, verbally of course.  After all, this is the man who brilliantly dismantled Rudy Giuliani with one concise quip - a rarity for the chronically verbose Biden - “Every sentence of Rudy’s has a noun, a verb and a reference to 9/11.”  

So if Joe Biden can overcome his Obama gaffe, then there’s hope for everyone else.  Just make sure you make yourself indispensable to the people from whom you need forgiveness.

Finding just the right balance and intensity of media attention when you’re running for President can be a tricky thing.  Just ask Barack Obama.  His candidacy has received enormous media attention for a host of legitimate reasons: his youth, dynamic nature and oratory skills have captured the imagination of millions, he’s the first African-American candidate to win his/her party’s nomination, and he came out virtually nowhere to upset Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  Yet with all the billions of media impressions he has generated, a majority of Americans say they have no idea who this guy is or what he stands for.  Now if that isn’t a stinging condemnation of the superficiality of today’s media coverage, I don’t know what is.

Strangely enough, even though many Americans remain uncertain about what makes Obama tick, there’s a general sense that we’ve seen far too much of him.  The lopsided attention thus far in the campaign has allowed John McCain to fly somewhat under the radar and elude the scrutiny that any candidate should receive.  Gone somewhat unnoticed have been McCain’s gaffes and public speaking mistakes which make him seem confused, old and overwhelmed.  In light of the favorable affect this imbalance has for them, I doubt you’ll be hearing the McCain camp screaming about a lack of equal air time.

The conventional wisdom has always held that the more media attention a candidate gets, the better.  But the attention Obama continues to get is now turning problematic, virtually making McCain’s comparison of him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton a self-fulfilling prophesy.  In an effort to celebrate his newness, his ability to stir and engage audiences and the promise he holds for breaking a GOP death grip on the Oval Office, the media may be killing Obama with kindness.  Its coverage of him does resemble what’s afforded a celebrity,  the kind of relentless bombardment of attention that eventually leaves us feeling like we’ve OD’ed on him.

Obama needs to help this shift away from him.  Between now and November, he should go on the offensive and point out the major inconsistencies in McCain’s publicly stated positions, the flagrant misspeaks, the secrecy surrounding his failed first marriage and his second wife’s business dealings.  John McCain, despite being smeared and backstabbed by George Bush in 2000, was one of W’s biggest cheerleaders.  Certainly that now has to be a huge Achilles Heel for him.  Rather than bask in the glow of excessive media focus, Barrack Obama needs to roll up the sleeves of his starched white shirt and shine the spotlight on his opponent.

Deep down, I know that thoughts of John Edwards’ implosion should not be occupying me while I’m on vacation.  But so spectacularly stupid was his handling of this fiasco, that it makes me suspect his $400 haircuts were taking off more than “a little on the sides.”  The part of his brain that controls sound judgment clearly wound up on the hair salon floor as well.

First of all, Edwards seemingly has broken the #1 rule media trainers dispense (or at least should) at the beginning of every session:  The truth is non-negotiable.  Now, that doesn’t mean you have to ring out your soul like a sponge of every unsavory detail on national TV.  It does mean that the main “takeaways” from the interview have to be built on a foundation of truth.  To claim that his intimate encounter with Rielle Hunter was a “one-time thing,” smacks of the kind of idiotic brainstorming that must go on in these crisis comm strategy sessions.  Just for the sheer entertainment value,  wouldn’t you love to have a seat at that table?  Those are the sessions where bunker mentality sets in and an entirely new web of deceit is created to minimize the damage caused by their man getting tangled in his previous web.  This is not math here fellas - multiplying two negatives will not bring you a positive.  Some of what these public image czars hatch is downright comical. For instance, to have Edwards say he’s been “99% honest” reminds me of the Elaine character from Seinfeld insisting in a job interview that she had “a little bit of grace.”  To me, honesty and grace are the same type of quality, you either have it or you don’t.

As for his offer to submit to a DNA test- how disingenuous can you get? Apparently Edwards is so inwardly obsessed that he can’t see what fools he’s taking his audience for - a violation of another basic tenet of communications coaching: don’t assume your audience is a bunch of naive idiots    Who out there doesn’t at least strongly suspect that Hunter’s “arrangement” with the Edwards camp doesn’t include an agreement not to play out this ordeal in a genetic court of law?  Edwards is a skilled trial lawyer.  The first rule of litigation is not to ask a question to which you don’t already know the witness’ answer.  It would stand to reason that Edwards would not offer to submit to a paternity test unless he already knew that the other party would absolutely refuse to participate.

But the smarmiest is still to come.  What genius thought to try to minimize the tackiness of Edwards’ infidelity by insisting it occurred while his wife’s cancer was in remission?  Maureen Dowd expressed her incredulity over this brilliantly when she wrote that Edwards’ was trying to characterize his philandering as  ”oncologically correct.”  This kind of qualified mea culpa leaves the viewer with a somewhat queasy feeling.  If you’re going to own up to a failure of character, take full responsibility without any excuses.  Trying to soften the blow in some desperate attempt to salvage a career in which having the public’s trust is essential is not only narcissistic…. it’s pathetic.  Face it.  Edwards is done.    

This is the time of year when everyone is in search of the perfect book to take along to the beach or read in a slow-swinging hammock.   Typically August is a month for trashy, quick-read novels, or at the very least, nothing too cerebral.

But when you media train authors for a living, your reading list is pretty much dictated by your clients.  That’s not always a good thing.  We’ve certainly had our share of books that weren’t released - but escaped.  But this summer we are on one heck of a hot streak with the authors we’ve coached.  Never in our seven years can I remember an all-star line up of authors and books like this.  It’s been an absolute pleasure to read their fine work and get them ready for their grueling media book tours.

First, Jane Mayer’s exhaustively researched The Dark Side.  Jane, an author and writer for The New Yorker, examines how the Bush Administration’s war on terror turned into a war on American ideals.  We were thrilled to see that she was the front page focus of this week’s New York Times Book Review - attention that is incredibly well deserved.

Also doing extremely well on the Amazon rankings is Christopher Ciccone’s Life with My Sister Madonna.  To meet this man is to understand that he is incapable of producing a hatchet job on his sister.  It is an intimately revealing book about how an extroverted girl from Michigan became the most well known female pop icon of the past half century.  If the goal of celebrity coverage is exclusive access, Christopher has everyone beat.  He was there for virtually all of it.  This may be the most deliciously naughty beach read of the summer.

On the other end of the literary spectrum is Mary Ellen Geist’s touching and poignant memoir Measure of the Heart.  In beautifully written prose, Mary Ellen tells the life-changing and life-affirming story of leaving the fast-paced, high-powered world of broadcast journalism to go home and care for her father suffering from Alzheimer’s.  With a delicate balance of humor and unspeakable sadness, Mary Ellen gives voice to the heart-wrenching challenges hundreds of thousands of baby boomers now face in caring for an ailing or aging parent.

But of all of our authors, Curtis Sittenfeld and her novel American Wife has easily received the greatest amount of pre-pub date publicity. Of course when you write fiction that is admittedly based on First Lady Laura Bush and includes descriptive sex scenes, you’re likely to get a little attention.  But of all the books to come out this year, this one might easily be the most misunderstood.  The anecdotal buzz swirling is that it’s disrespectful and negative about Mrs. Bush.  Only those who have not read the book would be inclined to say that.  In truth, it’s a fairly flattering portrayal created by a self-professed Laura Bush fan.  It is a great read, and no, it does not threaten to undermine the leader of the free world or his marriage.

Now if only this parade of great books could continue into the fall.  But we all know it’s just a matter of time before some publishing house asks us to gear for working with the author of The La Jolla Makeover Handbook.

I was most intrigued to read Andrew Martin’s article this past weekend in The New York Times Business Section on Whole Foods, entitled, “A Fresh Image in Lean Times.”  The piece looked at how the company’s once-meteoric growth has given way, in these tough economic times, to an image problem.  Whole Foods is now saddled with a growing consumer perception that shoppers are about as likely to find bargain items in their stores as cans of Spam and Cheez Whiz.  

Clearly Whole Foods cooperated with the reporting of the piece, making available one of the company’s co-presidents, as well as a store manager who was providing tours to shoppers to enlighten them on ways not to drop their “Whole Paycheck” for a week’s worth of groceries.  I’m sure both spoke with Andrew Martin at length, providing numerous facts and data to support their claim that shopping at Whole Foods and staying on a tighter grocery budget are not mutually exclusive.  Like any exchange with a journalist, there are no guarantees that the quotes you want to see in print will make it into the final piece.  In media training we constantly work on transforming a client’s most important points into quotes and sound bites that are too good for a reporter to pass up.  But in this piece, what proved irresistible to The Times reporter were two off-message remarks.  The Whole Foods interviewees made two critical errors that sealed their fate and ensured that what ended up in print was exactly what they didn’t want to see published.

During the tour of the store, Whole Foods rep Shawn Hebb held up a $1.99 package of tofu and said, “It looks gross but it’s delicious.”  If you’re in the food industry, “gross” is one of those words that should never cross your lips, just like someone marketing shampoo should never utter “greasy” or “stringy.” Those pejorative terms conjure up images that are better left unimagined.  Perhaps he didn’t realize that he needed to be pitch perfect from start to finish with the reporter tagging along on the tour. But that’s what makes hosting a print reporter so challenging.  There may be no reporter’s notebook visible or micro-cassette tape rolling, but a good reporter is always mentally recording what you say.   From the moment you shake their hand hello to the moment you shake it goodbye, everything you say is fair game.

Then it was co-president Walter Robb’s turn to provide the wrong kind of quote.  This one broke the old Henry Ford philosophy of “don’t complain and don’t explain.”   When asked about the popularity of the nickname “Whole Paycheck,” Robb responded with, “I’m getting a little tired of that tag around our neck….” Oh stop it!   Nobody wants to hear your self-pitying whining.  That kind of bellyaching just makes an executive sound like a sore loser and reinforces that he’s struggling with getting knocked off his pedestal. What he should have said was something more along the lines of: “We’re well aware of that label, and even though it’s not an accurate one, our job is to prove that Whole Foods is where you can find the very best quality and have it work within your budget.” 

If the mission for Whole Foods in agreeing to be interviewed was to reverse the perception that their extravagance is beyond the means of the average shopper, they fell far short of their goal.  Instead, they offered up two quotes that did more harm than good.