John McCain has been adorned with more nicknames than a veteran big league ballplayer: McBush, McLame, and on and on.  I want to add one to the list: Lurch.  No, not that giant breathing cadaver that worked as The Addams Family’s butler.  Lurch is the constant state McCain has been in for the past couple of months. Let me give you some examples of how McCain has been lurching from one position to another:

• Smart money had McCain selecting a politically moderate running mate, a Tom Ridge, a Joe Lieberman. But who does Lurch pick?  Attila the Hun with steel rims and a beehive doo.
• During the financial meltdown, McCain announced he was suspending his campaign and not participating in the first debate.  Well, Lurch resumed stumping well before the bailout measure was passed and there he was at his podium in Oxford, Mississippi, looking all weary-eyed and saggy-tailed.
• A week ago the McCain forces were insinuating that Barack Obama was not Christian enough, not patriotic enough and a pal with terrorists.  After enough criticism emerged for inciting the angry, violent-minded mobs at his gatherings, Lurch then described Obama as a decent family man.
• On Saturday, McCain’s people leaked word to Politico that he would be unveiling a detailed proposal on Monday for how America can survive and deal with the current financial meltdown.  On Sunday night, Lurch realized his homework wasn’t going to be ready in time for class Monday morning, so yet another about face.  Now, no proposal is coming.

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.

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.

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.

Uncle Sam is no different from the rest of us.  On his birthday he would (if he were a real person) do what we all do: take stock of his successes and disappointments, assess how gracefully (or not) he’s aged, and ask the logical question, “I’m 232 years old.  Is this where I’d thought I’d be at this age. 

Like any A-list celebrity, Uncle Sam would likely generate lots of media requests for interviews.  But should he grant them?  Saying no and hiding behind his Old Glory top hat would be a bad idea.  Everyone would think he’s hiding something.  But agreeing to be interviewed would leave him exposed to addressing all sorts of problems….er…. I mean challenges he faces (no one has “problems” anymore or even “issues”  just the newest banal word: “challenges”). 

Imagine the questions.

1. Why are people being forced to choose between gas and food? 
2. Did the sub-prime mortgage debacle kill the American Dream? 
3. Are you really thinking of waging three simultaneous wars? 
4. How bad will layoffs get? 
5. Will the US dollar ever recover? 
6. Are you past your prime?  

Ultimately every interviewer also will ask some variation on the following: How much longer can you underachieve and still expect to remain #1 when your competitors are gaining on you fast?  

I really do love Uncle Sam, so I would want him to ace these interviews.  So even though he collects a healthy chunk of every consulting dollar I earn, here’s some free advice for him (and for all other #1 players who see their pesky rivals getting bigger in their rearview mirror).

When asked about the competition, don’t brand them, and don’t slam them.  There’s nothing to be gained from giving the other guys who are gaining on you free air time and making them seem like the center of attention.  Remember, they would love to be in your shoes.  And for goodness sakes, don’t disparage them.  You’ll come across looking petty and threatened, conduct unbecoming of someone in a leadership position.

When asked about competition, every fiber of your being should be exuding a “bring it on” attitude.  Never appear intimidated by your rivals.  Remember, it’s the thrill of competing that gets you out of bed in the morning and makes this all so exciting.  Competition makes you bring you’re “A-game” every day.  Imagine how boring being #1 would be if it was merely handed to you.

In the face of skeptical questioning, Uncle Sam should remind everyone of his track record.  He’s faced challengers for many decades and has always emerged with his leadership status in tact:  Germany, Japan, the USSR, etc.  He needs to exude the same conviction that the future will be no different, despite changing global realities.  But he also can’t sound like he’s clinging to an outdated dream.  He needs to be armed with a handful of specific measures and initiatives already underway that remind everyone that he is still a visionary, and not an overwhelmed fireman merely putting out the most threatening blaze directly in front of him.   Vague generalities about greatness and mindless chest beating we’ve heard over and over, and each time it sounds more stale.

So that is my modest birthday gift to you Sammy Boy.   And between you and me, you don’t look a day over 231.