Where's Our Great Communicator?

Ronald Reagan was once referred to as the Great Communicator. Not sure any of the current crop of presidential-wannabes rates quite that high. In fact, I wouldn't give any of them close to an A yet. Here's what I would advise:

• Clinton – Finally found your “voice.” Great. Okay, so you’re under different/tougher scrutiny than the men. Life is tough; politics is tougher. When you teared up and people actually saw your softer side, it worked. That’s where you have the advantage over the “old boys’ network.”
  
  
• Obama – You need to stick with the “hope” message. Down and dirty, even a little bit, is never going to work for you. Tell your staff and supporters that, too. Hillary was right about it taking Dr. King AND President Johnson working together to get civil rights laws passed when they were passed.
  
  
• Edwards -- Biggest house in South Carolina. Dad was a “mill worker” for only a short time. Disconnect between who you are and what you’re saying. Get a message that fits.
  
  
• McCain -- Contrarian, curmudgeon? However you style yourself, it’s working with voters -- for now. Positions that make you look more like a Democrat than a Republican may run out of steam before November, however. Voters have a long memory, and the media is there to remind them.
  
  
• Romney – Prettier than Edwards, but too bland, too nice. Who are you? No message that sticks. Also, unless you plan to buy Detroit and give everybody a job, let’s watch the photo ops in front of the closed auto plants.
  
  
• Huckabee -- What do you stand for? You’re a Baptist preacher. Great. Tell us how that will make you a better president. By the way, we already had one president from Hope, Ark. Who cares if you lived there longer?
  
  
• Giuliani -- When your whole campaign can be described -- accurately -- as “noun, verb, 911,” you’re toast unless you’ve got something else to offer. You’re running a campaign for president, not mayor. Get a message that fits you and the voters. See Edwards and Romney, above. (Note: People DO care about the relationship with your wives. If asked, admit mistakes. If Sarkozy is following your lead these days, you’re both in trouble. Also, he has the advantage in the tackiness sweepstakes because he’s FRENCH. You’re not.)

Last but not least, he's not a candidate but he was a president:

• Bill Clinton – Advisor, attack dog, defender of the Mrs. Whichever role you’re playing, you’ve got to keep it low key. You’re the ultimate politician, but YOU’RE NOT RUNNING THIS TIME, so keep your cool! Don’t become the story.

A Shave, A Haircut and a President

Finally one of the most honored traditions of election-year news coverage has reappeared – the interview of the guy sitting in the barber chair. It’s never in a big town or a fancy salon. We always get an introductory shot of the rotating barber pole out front (in red, white and blue, naturally). Ah, Main Street USA.

How could anybody be more credible than a guy who’s basically sitting in a big high chair, with an over sized bib around his neck! It’s a ridiculous place to be. You’re sitting there the same way you’ve sat since you were two years old. Your mom probably still has the pictures of your first shearing. Nobody could be calculating or anything less than totally honest, just sittin’ there, getting his hair shaped up. (“Not too short on the sides, Ed.”) Guys who go to barber shops are the backbone of this country. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a “salon” wearing one of those slinky, supposedly unisex (but they never really seem that way) smocks. No, sirree! We need that big bib to keep the cut hair off our lap and pants, not just our shoes. Skip the blow dryer and don’t even get close to us with mousse. Unless Brylcreem makes it, I don’t want any of that goo on my head.

Course not. We’ve got our image to uphold and this year, a president to pick. Have to look serious at all times.

And don’t expect to see any women interviewed while they get their hair styled/done/fixed. Women seem to know better than we do what photo ops are most attractive for TV -- and which ones are not.

Not Exactly A Home Run

Roger Clemens continues to pay the cost for waiting so long to speak up about the accusations in the Mitchell Report – and for being less than direct in getting his story out. Right after the report was released, Andy Pettitte went a long way toward taking himself out of the spotlight by getting out there right away with what seemed like a reasonable explanation for his inclusion in the report. Clemens remained silent, on advice of his attorney.

And the Clemens story just gets “curiouser and curiouser,” doesn’t it? I heard what Clemens attorney’, Rusty Hardin, said as the explanation for why he wanted Roger to wait so long, but I didn’t really understand it. Maybe that was the point. What info did they need to gather, anyway? I would think he either did it or he didn’t. If he didn’t, he should have said so – soon and often.

At his news conference, Roger sounded mad, which is appropriate, but he seemed to be mad at the fans, as well as the sports writers. Don’t the fans and sports writers make up the audience he needs to win over? Clemens said he’s amazed he wasn’t given the “benefit of the doubt.” Well, he might have gotten it if he’d actually come out right away and said: “That’s a damned lie! I never, never took steroids or human growth hormone!” And what’s with all the whining? So you’re in a tough spot, Roger. You also got millions of dollars for “working your butt off.” We might still give you the benefit of the doubt, but we’re not going to feel sorry for you.

It would have been a very different story if Clemens had gotten out there early, said he didn’t do it, and stuck with that same message. Did you see him on 60 Minutes? And what happened to the Big, Bad Mike Wallace. (Coincidentally, apparently a pal of Clemens.) The term is “follow-up questions,” Mike. Where were yours?

On that same program, if you look at it from a pure communications standpoint, you could argue that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did a better job of explaining his relationship to Benazir Bhutto and his actions before and after her assassination. Overall, he sounded very reasonable and straightforward. (One misstep, General: Don’t blame the victim. You got led into saying it was Bhutto’s own fault for getting shot. Oops! )