Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Having notched a devastating defeat in the NC primary, Hillary Clinton now needs to figure out how to lose like a winner.  She might just find a mentor in our own Clay Aiken.  The carrot-topped crooner turned a second-place "American Idol" finish into a first-rate career move.  Can Hillary do the same as it becomes clear she won't be the top "Democratic Idol" come convention time? 

My advice is for her to stay in the race a little longer, but to soften her tone.  Keep Obama on his toes.  He desperately needs a sparring partner, as his sputtering performances over the last two months make plain.  But don't draw blood. 

Then, once the superdelegates begin their group march toward Obama, Hill ought to graciously withdraw and move quickly into her next incarnation -- Obama campaigner, Senate superpower and globe-trotting diplomat.  Now as for Bill (who's still the coolest Democrat alive), that's a whole other question ...  

This Presidential primary season is wearing me out. I'm tired. Both Democratic candidates are offering attractive platforms of change, but on the surface there have been very few stark differences between them...UNTIL NOW.

Insert the smoke and mirror parlor trick that is the Gas Tax Holiday.

On April 6th I bought a tank of gas for my 1998 Honda Civic HX** at $3.29 per gallon. Yesterday I purchased a tank of gas for $3.54 per gallon, almost exactly one month after the previous. I feel it. It hurts. Something must be done. Is it elitist and out of touch for me to feel that this 'holiday' being proposed by Clinton and McCain is so much hot wind blowing down Pandering Alley?

I took economics in college. Even if I had not, I would still smell a rat. Who's going to pay for this? According to Clinton, Big Oil is going to cough up the $8 billion in the form of a windfall profit tax. Never mind that there is no precedent for this tax. Never mind that this tax has not yet even been proposed, but rather is part of the bundled proposition set forth by the Clinton campaign. What if it doesn't pass? Who will pay for it? Both of those questions were rhetorical. It will not pass - it's been tried and has died before. I will pay for it. And you. In the short run, we'll simply play middle man between China and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, 18.4 cents worth of Federal highway dollars will be getting sucked down the ol' drain for every single gallon of gas purchased during this proposed holiday. This, during an election cycle focused in part on the dire straits of our national infrastructure.

Using today's pre-Memorial Day price as a benchmark, trimming that 18.4 cents off the top - and rounding up, of course - puts the price of gas at $3.36 per gallon. Sounds dreamy, I know. Now imagine the siphon on demand that will be created by the knowledge that, once the 'holiday' is over, the prices will catapult back to an adjusted level. People will line up at the pumps to top off their tanks. Demand goes through the roof. OPEC is not going to increase production just because we decided to take a break from reality. The reality is, profit margins for Big Oil will skyrocket.

I'm hearing the argument that the anticipated household savings of $28-$30 over the course of the 3 month tax holiday is tangible to working Americans, and that anyone opposed to the plan is out of touch with the middle class struggle. I disagree. Ten dollars is a non-issue in all but the most restrictive of monthly budgets. In the case of those most restricted household budgets, blowback will in some way or another generously offset that monthly ten spot. If this is allowed to play out, we will all be out far more than $30. I have not seen anything resembling a perfect way out of this mess we've gotten ourselves into. But come on - can't we at least try to keep our feet on the ground as we try to work through it?

My thoughts to this point have been overtly, unapologetically political, so let me end on a marketing communications note. No matter how bad an idea this is...no matter how much of a gimmick you may or may not believe it to be...I believe this proposed holiday is a marketing maneuver that will deliver for Hillary Clinton, in the form of primary votes in Indiana. People are frustrated over gas prices, and regardless of the facts of the case, this marketing tactic gives the good vibe of John Q. Public reaching out and touching his government.

 

** Stay tuned for my upcoming article on the choices we make as consumers of petroleum. My 1998 Honda Civic HX is 10 years old, with 158,000+ miles. I still get 37mpg city, 41mpg highway. I'm not trying to be smug or arrogant. But seriously, what the hell? 

Does it make you ‘light in the loafers’ to think the word 'pansy' has no place in a discussion between a governor and a candidate for president? Is it more acceptably ‘butch’ to take the term as 'authentic' and move on? Or is the word way too ‘frat boy’; deserving all the scorn the chattering class can muster?

I could throw around borderline slurs all day, but that's not the point. The point is communication and what gets lost when descriptive language gets a little too loose.

Gov. Mike Easley recently told a cheering crowd that Sen. Hillary Clinton's toughness makes Rocky Balboa look like a "pansy." The big news from that event should've been Easley's endorsement of Clinton for president. The questions should have focused on Easley's sway in the state and the endorsement's potential impact on the presidential race.

Instead, much of the media zeroed in on 'pansy.'

The comment itself wasn't all that surprising. Easley has identified himself as a "King of the Hill"-style Democrat, a nod to one of his favorite and an admittedly great television series. Easley says what he means, means what he says, keeps it simple, keeps it real. I swear, with my left hand on my lunch box, I get it.

Still, "pansy" – whether it’s a gay slur or a synonym for softie or both – became too much of a distraction. Taking on Uber-Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger (instead of blue collar champ Rocky) with a "girly-man" reference might have packed a smart political punch, but probably would’ve irked some. "Wimp" would've done just fine and has precedent. George H.W. Bush wrestled unsuccessfully (but man-fully) with the term through the final months of his one-term presidency.

Some bloggers are ripping Easley as a “bigot” for his word choice. His record suggests this is unfair. Moreover, the game of finger-pointing quickly becomes a house of mirrors. Does hurling the accusation of ‘bigot’ make you ‘knee-jerk’ and ‘politically correct’? If you get in a lather about ‘pansy,’ shouldn’t you also refuse to use its opposite number, ‘good ol’ boy’ (which, after all, is code in some circles for ‘backwards bigot,’ yes?).

See what I mean? Suddenly, the rational world of thinking, decision-making and explaining becomes a swirl of confusion, code and, finally, intellectual collapse.

When it comes to descriptive language, be smart about where and how to use it. I love hearing UNC system President Erskine Bowles talk about the “tsunami” of change coming to our economic landscape. It sweeps me up and makes me part of the cause. I hate – and I bet you do, too – hearing otherwise compelling messages muddled by words that push people out of a rational process and into the no-man’s/woman's/all-living-things' land of finger-pointing.

Earlier this week, I published a commentary  piece in The News & Observer that attempted to capture the commoditization of the political process in the term ‘branditics.' 

In a nutshell, branditics is the fusion of branding and politics that often results in over-simplified messages, bigger-than-life promises and, if the current administration is any indication, a brutal hangover the next morning. 

You may be able sell politicians as brands, but at some point successful candidates have to lead by negotiation and consensus - and that's where being boxed into a brand can cause trouble. 

What does New Hampshire add to this picture?  Well, an oldie but goodie has roared back onto the branditics stage - John McCain driving his Straight Talk Express. 

But the big news is that the fierce back-and-forth of the primary so far is working against branditics.  Obama, Clinton and Edwards will hold each others' poor, sore feet to the fire - making sure there's substance to back up the style.  Ditto the Republicans, who will probably be playing a tough game of catch-up all the way up to election day.      

The polls were right.

"Shock waves" is an overused term in the news media and politics. But that's the only way to describe Hillary's win in New Hampshire.  Just hours before voting ended, polls indicated that Obama was running as much as 10 percentage points ahead.  

What happened, especially in light of John McCain's big win in the Republican primary?  How could the polls have been so right in the GOP race, and so wrong in the Democratic primary?

They weren't.

And there are several reasons why.

The support for Obama in New Hampshire polls was soft and fluid.  Much of the large-scale movement toward Obama was a reflection of his big win in the Iowa caucuses and the tidal wave of favorable media coverage in the days that followed.  The Obama campaign in New Hampshire violated one of Abraham Lincoln's cardinal rules of politics:  don't start believing your own press clippings.

New Hampshire voters are famously irascible, and the Democrats didn't want the race to be over.  Neither did the Republicans, by the way, because they were stingy toward the GOP winner in Iowa, Huckabee.

More than ever, there is more information for voters until the very last minute.  Contrast the 24/7 cable news coverage, not to mention Internet and other communications channels.  Then compare it to elections even four or eight years ago.  Voters get more and later information.  And in this case, whatever late breaking information they absorbed about the Democrat race changed their minds.

Finally, some evidence from exit polls showed that Hillary made some good adjustments between Iowa and new Hampshire.  She attracted a greater share of female and younger voters.

New Hampshire's Democratic outcome is a good reminder of what polls are: a snapshot at a specific time.  Polls are nt a predictor of outcome in a fast-moving, dynamic election campaign where voters are getting multiple messages until decision time.

The polls were right - when they were conducted.  

On to Michigan and South Carolina!

Experience is proving to be a key issue on both sides of the aisle in the '08 presidential elections.  I've noticed throughout the pre-caucus melee that experience has been talked about far more amongst the candidates themselves than in my supermarket or my local watering hole. Those with have attacked relentlessly those without, and those without (or with less) have set their jaw and refused to be shaken. Wednesday's events in Pakistan have thrown a curve ball to the candidates, putting their foreign policy credentials under the microscope with little time for them to prepare their statements.

Clever strategists have armed their people with back doors and sidesteps and comebacks and Ooooooooh no he DIDN'T! answers for every attack. Noone wants to take a stance on anything! It's all about who's experienced enough to make the best decision, should that decision need to be made anytime in the next four years. Consequently, we are getting a bounty of absolutely riveting political drama. CNN has turned SportsCenter; I can tune in on the half-hour to get a fresh highlight montage of one-liners, sound bytes and eloquent-yet-completely-bewildering-and-incomprehensible question dodges. Taking advantage of the free press, this week the presidential candidates have offered more of the same.

Huckabee apologized to Pakistan for the assassination. A small misstatement; his good intentions were obvious and sincere. But the blogosphere is sparkling with questions of his ability to manage policy issues. Zoinks! It's common knowledge that he has little foreign policy experience. But if you heart Huckabee...it's probably not going to rock your opinion of the man. It's fun to laugh and point, but honestly, in a few days it'll be forgotten, and his charismatic thing that he's working will shine through again, and it's back to the races. You can't not like the guy, you know?

Clinton...okay, touché, Hillary. She's hit a little smooth patch with this one. She's mostly letting the experience she gained with Bhutto during the nineties speak for itself.

Giuliani had what seemed to me a small, muted Howard Dean moment, blurting out that blame was with 'the Islamic terrorists' and soothsaying ominously that the same could happen in OUR cities unless...

Obama did his thing, too. I don't even remember what he said, but it was beautiful. And he really, really meant it. 

All of the candidates released statements of sadness and concern for the family and loved ones of Bhutto, and concern for the region in general. It is indeed sad, and we should be concerned. Benazir Bhutto was a [re-]rising star in Pakistan, with a promise of diplomacy and moderation that has left a void in it's absence. The candidates were correct and responsible in offering their condolences. But beyond that? Pure opportunistic theater. Those with direct or indirect foreign policy experience with Pakistan positively wiggled with excitement (I am imagining my little dog Maddie being wagged by her spastic tail after seeing me for the first time in 8 hours) at the opportunity to show it off. Those without barely broke stride in falling back on their individual strengths, lulling me into tranquil assuredness that their lack of experience won't be a problem.

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I am trying to really get a sense of who all of these people are, and how they are. Voting records are important to me, but not nearly as important as the character of the candidates. A person with strength of character will vote to make the right decision, and it may not always follow party lines. I see right through all the finger-pointing. I'm barely paying attention to the watered-down droll anymore - talk to me in six months. But you better believe I'm tuning in for my highlights. Da da da. Da da da...