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.

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.