Talk to any ardent Democrat and enthusiastic Obama supporter and you’ll hear a common lament:  ”why doesn’t he fight back?  McCain lies about his record, patronizes him and shows him no respect and what does Obama fire back with?  Senator McCain is right….. John is absolutely right about that…. I agree with Senator McCain.”   Maureen Dowd expressed bewilderment over why Obama doesn’t pound his fist on the lectern and demand that his opponent stop blatantly distorting his record.  Several other columnists have chided Obama for being too laid back, too passive.  Well it looks as though Obama has been so successful in removing race as an issue in this campaign that his critics have forgotten he’s Black.  

The rules of engagement are totally different for him.  We Americans may pride ourselves on being enlightened, tolerant and yes, maybe even color blind.  But the Senator from Illinois knows better.  He’s savvy enough to know that a wide swath of Americans still would have a visceral reaction to a young and energetic man (and Black to boot) going for the jugular of someone who looks like every white person’s grandfather. McCain may not be able to raise his arms to shoulder level, but Obama is literally fighting this knock-down, drag-out brawl with one hand tied behind his back.  Sure Obama could bring some passion and edge.  But how many undecideds would label him the stereotypical “angry Black man?”  

By striking a calm, reasoned tone in the debate, Obama is tearing a page out of Mohammed Ali’s prize fighting manual.  Ali was famous for a boxing tactic that came to be known as Rope-a-Dope.  He would allow himself to be backed up against the ropes where his opponent would swing away wildly.  But because Ali used his arms and gloves to cover all his vulnerable spots, the landed punches had minimal effect. Ali would only occasionally jab back, but before long, his opponent had exhausted himself.  

McCain is clearly dealing with a fatigue factor as well, not so much his own, but a fatigue among the voters when a tone is too constantly critical and negative.  Obama is letting McCain punch himself out while he stays above the fray looking presidential.  It’s a tactic that seems to be working.  After all, we’re in the equivalent of Round 12 of a 15 rounder and right now Obama is ahead on points.  

The first Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign is history and all the poll results are cascading in.  I’ve never been good at predicting the winners of these things.  Back in 1984, when Ronald Reagan had a series of senior moments in his debate with Walter Mondale (right down to running out of time in the middle of his famous Shining City on a Hill story) I declared that Mondale had mopped the floor with ol’ Dutch.  The network anchors called it a draw.  Since then I just haven’t bothered offering my opinion.

But tonight, something quite noticeable stood out between McCain and Obama.  It had nothing to do with what either man was actually saying.  It had everything to do with each man’s body language. Based on that, Obama emerged victorious.  If you noticed, John McCain never once looked in Barack Obama’s direction - not when he was listening to Obama speak and not even when he was excoriating him for “just not understanding” how this complex and dangerous game of foreign policy is played.  Acting as though Obama wasn’t even in the room undermined the image McCain’s been trying to craft for himself as a reasonable guy who can play nicely with others.  In fact, by never looking at his opponent, McCain came across as petulant and even bordering on hostile. Obama, on the other hand, had good sustained eye contact with McCain throughout the evening, even when his opponent was delivering harsh criticism.  By doing so, Obama created the visual perception that he was not intimidated by McCain’s attacks.  McCain’s behavior however, made him seem like a man who is losing ground against an opponent he just can’t face.

Many experts say that what we take away from others is only 36% verbal.  The rest of our evaluation of others is influenced by non-verbal communication tools.  Tonight, Barack Obama had the more robust tool kit.

Last week Bill O’Reilly interviewed me on his program about what Sarah Palin needs to do to “up her game” in media interviews.  My main point was that if she’s going to continue to dodge and evade reporter’s specific questions, she needs to develop more finesse in doing so, because right now she’s not fooling anybody.

O’Reilly went on to predict that Palin’s upcoming interview with Katie Couric would not be as tough as the one with Charlie Gibson.  In O’Reilly’s words, it was going to be more “a couple of gals chatting” and that Couric would not want to come across as someone “battering a sister.”  I disagreed and warned that if Palin was walking into the CBS interview expecting it to be easy by comparison to the Gibson sit down, she was leading with her chin and begging to get clocked.  Give Katie credit, she treated Palin about as gently as one of the moose the Governor has supposedly shot and gutted.  She took Palin’s underestimation of her and knocked her silly with it.  On more than one occasion, the Alaska governor’s brain appeared to be in a deep freeze, completely at a loss to formulate a coherent thought.

Palin Interviewed by Couric

Now after two network interviews, Palin’s most glaring Achilles Heel has been exposed: specifics.  Couric was unrelenting in asking Palin to cite specific examples to support her positions.  She couldn’t do it. So don’t be surprised if Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric receive lovely gifts this week from Joe Biden, who really should thank them both for showing him where Palin’s weaknesses lie.  You think just maybe he’s tucked this scouting report away with the intent on exploiting it Thursday night?    For Palin it could be a longer night than the winter solstice in Anchorage.

Back in the 1960’s and 70’s there were only three network anchormen, and as a result, what they thought and said held tremendous sway.  In fact, when Walter Cronkite stopped concealing his disapproval of the Vietnam War,  President Lyndon Johnson grew concerned that public sentiment against the war would grow.  ”If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the country,” was his now-famous quote.

One has to wonder if John McCain tonight is having similar concerns about David Letterman.  McCain was scheduled to be a guest on Late Night with David Letterman tonight, but canceled at the last minute.  He told Letterman that he had to race back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis.  Letterman, peeved to begin with, went over the edge when he learned that McCain had plenty of time to stop by the set of the CBS Evening News for a sit down with Katie Couric.  Thus began a prolonged harangue by Letterman about how John McCain is not the same man he once knew.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html

Only historians will be able to judge whether McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign was a smart strategy that shifted momentum back to his side, or the equivalent of political suicide.  No doubt that analysis will begin on November 5th.  But perhaps he should have thought twice before blowing off Dave. After all, hell hath no fury like a talk show host scorned.  Infuriating someone who can get up on his loyally watched network soapbox and tear you a new one may not be a wise move in a close election.  That decision could ultimately end up in a future Top 10 list of reasons John McCain squandered the election.

What a farewell it was to Yankee Stadium Sunday night.  I feel very fortunate to have been there.  Except for the fact that Joe Torre’s name was not among the dozens of ex-Yankees mentioned as key historical figures, it was a well-choreographed night.  But not surprisingly, the most memorable moment was seemingly more impromptu.  Spontaneity, or the appearance of it, is always connects with us on a deeper level.

After the end of the game, Derek Jeter showed why he’s the captain and heart and soul of this team.  He took the microphone and addressed the crowd.  

Jeter Addresses Fans

He didn’t read from prepared remarks.  He didn’t make it all about him.  He made it all about the fans.  He turned his eloquent, yet conversational remarks into a tribute to all of us in the stands whom he described as “the greatest fans in the world.”  He credited all of us with being the crucial component in transforming a mere building into a legendary cathedral of baseball.

Professionals from every industry can learn a lot from his speech.

• It was concise and to the point (leaving you wanting more)
• It was not self-serving or inwardly focused.  He made it about his audience
• It was well planned and well thought out but not scripted
• It was from the heart and made every fan there feel as if he was speaking directly to them
• It was frank and honest yet optimistic
• It contained an inspirational call to action (”hand these memories down to the next generation.”)

I call it the Blue Book Syndrome.  Remember in school when you crammed for an exam and maybe you knew less than half the material?  Then the essay questions come and you find the one you can BS your way through and proceed to fill the whole damn book to create that illusion that you know what you’re talking about?  That seemed to be Sarah Palin last night with Charlie Gibson on ABC’s World News Tonight.  

It was pretty clear that she had rehearsed the names of the Georgian and Iranian presidents because she couldn’t wait to showcase how fluidly the pronunciations rolled off her tongue.  But The Bush Doctrine must not have come up in any of her all-nighter, crash prep courses, because the normally smooth Alaskan Governor looked like a Caribou in the headlights when Gibson asked her about it.   Palin tried wiggling out of the corner she was boxed into by stalling for time and asking “Charlie” (as she unctuously referred to him no fewer than ten times) to elaborate.  Hand it to Gibson.  He was smart enough not to throw her the life preserver.  Instead he asked her what she knew about the doctrine.  That was not one of her finer moments. Nor was her clumsy “bridging” of Gibson’s question on national security to an answer that was all about energy independence, a perceived safe-haven subject for her.  Because she didn’t handle the topic switcheroo deftly, Gibson instinctively decided to “drill, baby drill,”  delving deeper into just how much this woman with the nearly blank passport pages knows.

For his part, Gibson did an extraordinary job with a tough assignment.  Rough her up too much, and you open yourself up to making a martyr out of her with all those who have disdain for the media (which is only about 88% of all Americans).  Go too easy on her, and you get blamed for not educating the American public on her true readiness for the job - not to mention youl kiss your hero’s welcome back in the newsroom goodbye.  Gibson managed the delicate balancing act by lowering his voice to a soothing and calming mode that took the tone of attack out of his sharp and probing questions.  Gibson seemed intent on not looking charmed by Palin.  In fact, at times he seemed to be conducting a job interview with someone he had already deemed unqualified, but was forced to hire because she had connections.  It was as if he was saying, “I know I can’t make you go away, but let me at least have the pleasure of watching you squirm a bit.”

No matter what you think of Sarah Palin, her coming out party with the media is great mano a mano political theater.  I can’t wait to see if tonight’s installment brings us her version of a “Potatoes” moment… or is that “Potatos?”  

Everyone on air, whether on TV or radio, has a subdued tone on September 11th.  Rightfully so.  The last thing you want to hear on the heels of victims names read aloud is some on-air sports dude going about his hyperactively glib business as usual.  Reminder memos are still probably circulated from station managers to their on-air folks to insure that nobody engages in that characteristic happy-talk banter today.  Clearly a few Interview guests need to receive that same memo.

This morning, Greg David, Editor of Crain’s New York Business gave his views on the lasting economic impact the tragedy had on New York City’s economy, particularly the financial district.  One listen to this interview and you know something is terribly wrong.

http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2900163

Neither in his content nor his tone did David give a sense of the lasting magnitude of that terrible day.  Yes, he was speaking about the financial impact of the destroyed Trade Center, but that doesn’t give him a pass on at least acknowledging the thousands of destroyed lives.  If you didn’t know better, you would think he was talking about a water main break disrupting business.  Juxtaposed with the rest of that radio ststaion’s solemn coverage, his remarks sounded flip and insensitive, almost as if 9/11 caused no real hardship at all.  Overall you come away with a sense that 9/11 wasn’t really that bad an event at all for the city’s economy.  It was and still is devastating in so many ways that can’t be measured on a balance sheet.  He should have given voice to that somehow, even if he was booked to just speak to the business angle of it.

In this season of “political red meat,” it’s the “other white meat” that seems to be getting all the attention.

Pigs certainly are taking front and center stage in this Presidential campaign.  First we had heightened attention around Sarah Palin’s stance on the Alaskan ”Bridge to Nowhere,” a blatant piece of “pork” courtesy of the federal government.  Now, coincidentally or not, Barack Obama utters the line, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”  Yes, this phrase is a common political expression (McCain used it himself this year in talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan).  And yes, the Palin camp is jumping on every possible opportunity to play the “you’re persecuting me” card, a card that has a limited number of uses before it expires and makes her sound like a thin-skinned cry baby not ready to play with the big boys.  

But in politics, there’s no such thing as coincidence.  Every word and phrase, especially in criticism or attack mode is poured over, scrutinized and vetted to death.    Of course the Obama camp was fully aware that voters would immediately connect the dots  between his remarks and Palin’s own reference to “lipstick” in her convention speech.  Putting the suddenly popular Alaska governor in their crosshairs is indeed a risky decision, but Obama’s advisors are being told they can’t sit on their hands the way John Kerry did with the Swiftboaters.  They had to take at least a practice shot at her.  If there is lasting outcry, they can disavow intent and realize that the risk outweighs the reward in going after her.  If they sense a tolerance out there for taking the fight to her, then they can ramp up that get-tough strategy and take a few more shots.

Only the sharpness of Obama and Biden’s future criticisms of Palin will reveal what the political fallout is when pig remarks fly.

Years ago, during an acute drought in New York City, Mayor Ed Koch uttered a memorable warning on how our bathroom habits could help alleviate the crisis: “If it’s yellow, let it mellow.  If it’s brown, flush it down.” Koch had a playful earthiness to his communication style, so this line seemed very much in keeping with his persona.

Last week, another scatological reference made the news, only this one was shockingly ill-advised. Tucker Eskew, a senior adviser to Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was explaining the campaign’s decision to reveal all the possible controversies surrounding the Palin family all at once over the Labor Day weekend.  But rather than say, “we’re going to start this campaign by being a completely open book so we can move on to what’s truly important…. our plans to (blah, blah, blah),”  he conjured up a rather unfortunate image in saying, “We are going to flush the toilet.” 

Now listen, I’m as big a champion of a clever, well-placed analogy as you’ll ever find.  We often suggest effective ones for our clients during media training sessions.  But to liken the Palin family problems with human excrement?  What the heck was Eskew thinking?  The goal of an effective analogy is to compare yourself or your company to something that generates an immediate favorable reaction.  I don’t think this one got the job done.