We're coming down to the 15th round of the heavyweight preliminary - or what I like to call, Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio - and neither one of you has delivered a knock out. But whomever comes out the winner (without super-delegates) is certainly qualified to do a really good job.
Did you know that Al Gore and John Kerry were both pretty qualified too?
Did you know that George Bush won...both times?
Oh, I know that being experienced or charismatic work. You've both have at least one going for you.
But in addition I was hoping you might consider the following.
The public isn't dumb, but they will lean towards the side that makes understanding an issue the easiest, even if most times that is somewhat misleading. Talk show radio does it brilliantly using anger (their audience's and their own) to spin every issue into a diatribe against you. One of the reasons liberal radio hasn't worked as well as the one-note "we are right and they are wrong...hate-America wrong" is that the Left believes things are a little more complex. But just being smarter doesn't necessarily make for better radio. Except for Harry Shearer and Stephanie Miller. NPR is so, well, so-so.
But simple doesn't have to be witless. I give you The Daily Show, out of little bitty Comedy Central. Stewart and his crew have gotten everyone's attention. Stephen Colbert has been able to shed far brighter light on the truth than the supposed no-spin fella on the other comedy channel he's mocking.
Why? Satire. Smart humor that points to the absurd and gives the audience a little credit for having to think.
I suggest that whomever of you get the nomination that you be well-equipped with a well-sharpened sense of humor and fast comeback. If not, you better be handled by someone who can make you appear to have both. Kind of like a funny Karl Rove but, without the disdain for truth.
And you better be ready to commit to a wide-scale offensive. Turning every potential trip-up or rip by your opponent to your own satirical advantage isn't a drive-by effort; but it should look that way.
But neither of you are comedians...on purpose, that's why it will take a fully-charged, pull-no-punches, war-room operation.
You will need your own writing staff - a miniature "Daily Show," if you will - ready to take the crap thrown at you and hone it into satirical fertilizer; pointing out the absurdity in the attack or diffusing an actual hit with self-deprecating humor. Television, radio, blogosphere, print, in person - everywhere you can be seen or heard, you've got to be prepared. Balls ahead, ready to wax satirically.
When you are in trouble - and you will be - nothing says "good guy" better than a scoundrel's quick acceptance of blame. If only Bill C. had immediately admitted Monica as a mistake. If you can do it with a sense of humor, you're in better shape than if you had never made the mistake in the first place. (Though in the case of Bill and Monica, being too quick with a "should have never taken the cigar out of my mouth," might have been what we call in the funny biz "too soon.")
From the stump speech to debate, from talk show to nomination acceptance, your clever serve-and-return is necessary to parry every real or Swift Boat-ian assault from your opponent (or his surrogates). Who do you think would be running for his second term right now if he had a response prepared by a comedy staff whipping up punch-lines pointing out the insanity of the Swift Boat vets blaspheming a war hero while they cheer on a war dodger? Sure, their attack was hypocritical, but you have to say so and make the voter recognize its full-fledged lunacy. You need your own professional lunatics churning out your retort.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).