Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

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...

Mitt Romney's speech yesterday was a bold move that evoked favorable comparisons among many pundits and observers to the much revered John F. Kennedy. But was it a wise choice for the candidate to put himself and his controversial beliefs in the spotlight? My unequivocal answer is, yes. Here are just a few reasons why: 

The issue was already the elephant in the living room. You could not read an article or watch a news report that alluded to Romney without some mention of his faith. By addressing the issue head on he has been able to own the issue, better control the message and put himself on the offensive.

He had nothing to lose. According to polls, one-fourth of voters admitted that they would not vote for him solely because of his Mormon faith. Stepping up and facing the critiques with a well-covered press conference pushed voters to question their rationales and prejudices. Shining a light on this type of prejudice is the best cure.

What  better affinity brand than JFK. A Google search of mentions of JFK's 1960 speech about his Catholic beliefs in just the 12 hours after Romney's speech returned more than 1,300 hits. Talk about riding coattails. Even though the two approached the issue differently, by following the path of one of the most revered and respected leaders of modern history, Romney has positioned himself as this generation's JFK on this issue. What better way to appear presidential than to be associated with one of the highest rated Presidents in history.

Politics and religion are the ultimate taboo subjects according to some. By tackling the two in a straight-forward and respectful way, Mitt Romney has created an opportunity for his campaign to move beyond the issue and positioned him as presidential and electable. Will it be enough to get him to the White House? Only time will tell.