Why You is Better than Me

Democrats,

No, I'm not going jive on you. You is better than me. When running for office (or, in fact, leading any organization), people utilize different levels of leadership in an effort to more effectively connect with their target audiences. During campaigns, voters have the ability to sense the level of leadership a candidate has mastered. And this matters, big time.

What do levels of leadership have to do with you being better than me? A lot -- and they're already having an effect on the 2008 primaries and presidential race. But before we jump right into the current races, it's important to see how leadership levels, and you and me, have played a critical role in prior elections...

A Look Back

The 2000 Election (Bush v. Gore) key messages:

• George W. Bush ran on a lot of ideas (compassionate conservatism, lower taxes, unity [ha!]), but his campaign could be summed up as "I'm the guy who's more or less just like you, so of course I'll represent you the best in the White House."
  
• Al Gore ran on a lot of ideas as well, which can be summed up as "I'm more responsible than Clinton, and I'm just plain smarter than Bush."

Revelation: For every "I" in Bush's message, there is a corresponding "you." Compare this to Gore's message of "me, them, me, them." Gore completely left you, the voter, out of the message. This can be boiled down to Bush's you-first message competing with Gore's me-first message. Guess which message voters preferred?

The big idea here is that one candidate had the confidence and wherewithal to always remember who he was courting, and was able to keep his head above water. People see this as a signal of superior confidence and leadership skills. And in national politics, these feelings can trump specific policy platforms (read this sentence a few more times, Democrats).

Now, onto the 2004 Election (Bush v. Kerry) key messages:

• George W. Bush ran on "I'll keep you safe."
  
• Kerry ran on "I'm ready for duty, and I'm just plain smarter than Bush."
  

You're smart. You see the pattern. Bush is still linking himself with you in his message, and the Democrat, predictably, is still all about "me, me, me!" (Yes, we all know that Bush vaguely, barely and shoddily won each race, but Gore and Kerry should have wiped the electoral map with Bush's gaffes and inexplicable track record.)

Onto the Democratic Primaries

So, how do the Democratic candidates measure up to the you is better than me leadership approach?

Hillary Clinton (primarily) focuses on the predictable Democratic message of "me"...

• I'll be ready on day one
  
• I am more experienced
• I am a woman

Yet, she also has some "you" messages as well...

• I'm going to worry about you every day
• I'm going to fight for you
• I care about you and your troubles

Yes, Hillary's you-first messages are bit depressing (which is another traditional Democrat message pitfall), but at least she has a few you messages in her collection.

Barack Obama (primarily) focuses on a less conventional message of "we"...

• Together, we can change America
• We are the ones we've been waiting for

Yet, Obama also has a secondary batch of messages, which are of the "me" variety...

• I did not vote for the war
• I will bring people together
• I will change the tone in Washington

Like Hillary, Barack tries to focus on his primary message points whenever possible, but will fall back into his secondary messages when under the gun.

So, where do they stand? The answer lies in a simple leadership level calculus: You > We > Me. Simply put, you-first messages are stronger than we-first messages, are both are stronger than me-first messages.

If Hillary plans on winning, she's going to need to shift her focus from the less powerful me-first messages to her more meaningful you-first messages (she'll also need to clean them up to be less pessimistic). She can do this, but it's not very likely due to her depressingly piggish chief strategist Mark Penn.

If Hillary somehow does manage to shift to you, then Obama's movement-like 'we-first' messages get trumped -- he'll have nowhere to go but back to his store of weaker me-first messages. See the problem for Obama? He doesn't have any substantive you-first messages (did you catch that, Mr. Axelrod?). Fascinating.

The General Election

No matter who wins the primaries, Democrats will have a leg up on John McCain. Because, you guessed it, McCain is a me-first candidate:

• I am a war hero
• I am a maverick (ooh, sorry, I mean 'conservative,' my friends)
  
• I was for the surge when nobody else was
  
• I called for Rumsfeld's resignation when nobody else did
  
• I co-wrote McCain-Feingold (notice whose name is first, my friends? Yeah, thought you did.)
  

Could this be the underlying reason why Republicans feel so skeeved out about their candidate? This kind of personality candidate sounds more like a modern Democrat ("me, me, me!") than a modern Republican leader who effortlessly stays focused on the you.

To John's credit, he does try to use some we messages as well, but these are secondary and not very popular with his base. Sadly, we as a pronoun rings very socialistic to Republicans.

Barring extraordinary factors, we can use the You > We > Me leadership level calculus to predict who has the best chance of winning races...

The Primary Calculus
Barack's we beats Hillary's me unless Hillary can quickly shift her message to one that says you matter more than she does.

The Election Calculus
Barack's we beats McCain's me. Even if McCain reaches into his backup store of we messages, it'll be hard to compete with Obama's primary we messages.
Clinton's me ties McCain's me, but Clinton has a backup supply of you messages she can deploy for the knock-out punch against McCain's backup selection of we messages.

In the end, while this is all instrumental to success, there is a very simple lesson for any candidate to glean: Voters are the ones voting. Think of them first, and the right words will follow.

Republican Debate Showcases Republican Abate

Democrats,

By now, you've read all the conventional analysis surrounding the debates leading up to Super Duper Tuesday. But as you also know, this primary season has been anything but conventional.

To make sense of an unconventional political season, best to be armed with unconventional wisdom:

The Republican debate was a great exercise in opposition research. We learned a few important things about the presumptive front-runner John McCain that can be taken to the bank in the general election...

1. John McCain is tragically out of step with the fundamental priorities of most Americans. He sees the struggle against radical Islamic extremism as the "transcendent issue of our time: a fundamental struggle between good and evil." McCain asserts that "everything we stand for and believe in is at stake here."
   
   Wow - how quickly old timers can get out of step with reality. It feels like 1991 all over again, replacing George H.W. Bush with John McCain. Seriously, John, is the U.S. vs. Al Qa'ida really the equivalent of good vs. evil in biblical proportions? Or could it possibly be that America is seen as a neo-empire that is trying to control the flow of oil by keeping bases on Arab soil, and manipulating the power equation in the region as we see fit to protect our interests, and not the interests of the Arab people? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with protecting American interests, but what I am saying is that protecting our interests doesn't make them evil (or us good), and it doesn't make the problem transcendent. Rather, the issue is fairly geo-political, and only relevant for as long as we don't have alternative energy sources to rely upon.
   
   In the end, John McCain drank the Neo-Con Kool-Aid and is now apparently drunk on the power and force of Islamic extremism (or, the power of the military industrial complex). It's a shame to hear an American leader of such prominence giving so much credibility to such a marginal faction. Yes, Al Qa'ida has been quite destructive, but more damage from 9/11 has come as a result of America's fear of Al Qa'ida than Al Qa'ida's actual attacks.
   
   If we are determined to throw all of our money, military resources, and energy at trying to find a couple thousand extremists around the world, then we risk looking and sounding like the crazy uncle who tears up his own house looking for his dentures.
   
   By putting this stake in the ground, John is implicitly handing over the economy, global warming, and healthcare over to the Democrats to be their transcendent issues. That's a lot of political stickiness to give your opponent! The only way John wins at this game is if America is attacked again this year. Quite a bet to wage.
   
   
2. John McCain displayed a few instances of old-guy-reaching-for-words-he-couldn't-easily-find syndrome. Look, it's not nice to use ageism as a political tool, but if you don't want political straight talk, then don't come visit Our Karl Rove.
   
   
3. McCain dismayingly tried to use Bush-like debating strategies as he tried to corner Romney in his supposed support for timetables. He failed miserably. After McCain's campaign tanked over the summer of 07 due to his adoption of a "Bush III" campaign strategy, I thought John learned that he simply can't pull off the assoholic Bush campaign style. Apparently, John hasn't fully shed his Bush advisers. He should. The shoe just doesn't fit.

I'll briefly entertain Romney's problems just in case he becomes the nom:

1. Romney is Their John Kerry. Need I say more?
   OK, a couple more...
   
2. Romney is a center-less super-pleaser who may be smart and a great guy, but is simply not a good national politician. He's not politically savvy, he doesn't communicate well in the symbolic realm, and he is politically uncomfortable in his own suit.
   
3. Romney plays a true conservative on TV, but is too much of a smarty-pants to be a virulent southern-fried conservative that tends to win Republican elections. He's like George H.W. Bush meets Steve Forbes with some hair on top. Blech.
   

In the end, when contrasting the Democratic and Republican debates, the Democrats -- refreshingly -- appear to be the party of the politically savvy, smart, and in-touch candidates. John McCain and Mitt Romney certainly have their positive attributes, but their debate looked like amateur hour compared to the primmed and proper Dems the following night. Obama and Hillary really put on quite a show, and are demonstrating to America that Democrats once again are relevant at the executive level. Kudos.

Bush/Cheney the Reason for an Obama Blow-out in South Carolina?

What we've just witnessed in South Carolina looks like the New Hampshire effect all over again. But that's not even the big news. The big news is that the voters seem to have transformed in ways that are surprising to the Clinton camp.

The results are still rolling in as I'm writing this, but it looks like a wash-out for Hillary and Bill Clinton's candidacy.

Yes, I know I just outraged many people with the above statement. A Hillary and Bill candidacy? A Republican talking point! How dare I. But, you know what? That was Bill's doing. I am no Obama apologist, nor am I a Clinton hater. But the behaviors of the Clintons this week reeked of ugly desperation -- almost equivalent to what G.W. Bush did to McCain in 2000. Bill Clinton's behavior and style started allowing me to see him the way Republicans saw him in the 1990's.

And this is an important point to consider. Why am I drawn to Republican talking points to describe the Clintons? Because the Clintons create an environment ripe for such adversarial knife sharpening. And this from a guy who voted for Clinton twice. Even establishment Democrats began to be appalled by the Clintons' soft-peddling of R&R issues (Race and Reagan) in the past weeks.

The Clintons might be shocked to learn that these tactics don't seem to be working quite as well as they used to. Triangulation, R&R-baiting, destroy the opponent -- all tactics developed and honed by a frustrated "Clinton Democratic" party that witnessed the Reagan revolution and then the follow-up, Gingrich's Contract With America.

The media and many Americans are used to -- and generally expect -- this business-as-usual approach to politics. Most everyone in charge these days lived through the same events, and honed similar tools.

Yet Obama has changed the setting. Tools and tricks that used to fit and match the political decor now seem to fall flat. Strategies that used to be able to manipulate public opinion now seem to backfire.

Is it possible that the Bush/Cheney mis-administration itself is the X factor? Are we all now so keyed into being mass manipulated by this administration that we've developed a political 6th sense since the 1990s? Did Bush/Cheney actually help develop mad skills across the younger band of the electorate?

Perhaps.

Perhaps the zero-sum game is still alive and well -- where the Misadventures of Little Bush have sharpened the electorate that was previously dulled by decades of administrations that did not routinely mislead Americans out of deliberate habit.

Hillary and Bill Clinton will either remain in their echo chamber of the 90s and plow through the only way they and Mark Penn know how to... or they will pivot and recognize that it's a new world -- a world not defined by Barack Obama, but appropriated and symbolized by him.

Democrats: Follow Your Inner Winner

Democrats running for office,

As most regular readers of this column know, OKR is not an election horse-race blog. So, don't expect a full analysis of the election escapades here. There are plenty of blogs who are more than happy to play-by-play the fun and sport of it all.

However, as a result of the current horse race, there are some key observations that I've made that I believe are worth calling out and sharing for the good of all the candidates:

Obama's Inner Winner

When Obama (narrowly) lost the New Hampshire primary, he approached the defeat like a winner -- he didn't acknowledge defeat. Instead, he acknowledged the success of his campaign, his message, and his candidacy. He did not -- and has not -- let the media's "shock and awe" of the NH results affect his campaign complexion. He didn't even acknowledge defeat in NH, which some might feel is arrogant. But is it arrogant to decide to believe you didn't lose, but rather believe that you virtually tied?

No, it's not. It's not wrong to ignore the pundits, polls, and conventional wisdom. Doing so (prudently) reflects American-style optimism. While it's clear that this AmeriOptimism is not one of the Democrats' favorite cultural attributes, it's a attitude that -- if embraced properly -- could help win elections.

Message-wise, Barack does need to take a cue from the NH loss and attenuate his rhetoric. Speech upon speech about "changing the world" is great stuff, O, but you're going to have to come down to earth once in a while to re-prove to the voters that you've got some meat on them philosophical bones. The voters need to be armed with information that you communicate verbally (i.e., not just your website) so that Hillary's attacks do not seem as jarring.

Yes, I know that details can ruin a coalition and a movement. Yes, I agree with the approach of staying above the fray, and that running on an idea is the preferable way to run a national campaign. But you're still trying to court Democrats. And, bless their souls, Democrats really do like getting caught up in the facts and details. You are going to have to give them something.

Clinton's Inner Voice

When Hillary (narrowly) won the New Hampshire primary, she told the nation that she "found her voice." Well, that's a good thing to find -- especially after being in politics for "over 35 years." Congratulations are in order, but... how long have you been looking, Hillary?

No matter -- finding one's voice is like establishing one's brand. It creates a center of gravity -- an organizing principle -- from which to grow all messages, platforms, and policies. If Hillary truly has found her voice and doesn't outsource it to her thuggy campaign advisers, she stands a chance of not only beating Obama, but representing a candidacy of meaning instead of a candidacy of policies.

Message-wise, the Hillary campaign just hired sloganeer Roy Spence, which should put the campaign message in capable hands. Hillary just has to try to keep her center close to her. In other words, Hillary, don't lose your voice to the experts around you.

Edwards' Inner Principles

John has displayed an impressive commitment to changing the dynamics of power in America. It seems quite fruitless to most of us, as the existing power structure is set up to give most of us just enough to keep us content with the corrupt and unfair status quo. Yet, John sees a trajectory of power dissemination that troubles him dearly, and is willing to go the mat to rein in unbridled capitalism.

These inner principles are actually quite forward-thinking. What John is touching on will inevitably effect more of us in the coming months and years. I just do not think that we are at the right time and place in American history to make this the central issue of a campaign.

No matter the cultural relevancy, John has shown a visceral passion for systemic change that is attractive to a lot of people (even some Republicans). If he could only broaden his focus to issues facing more Americans right now, his inner principles would be taking him much further.

In the end, Democrats are the winners.

All of this inner stuff is good for the party. The prior several political seasons have portrayed Democrats as outwardly directed -- where campaign messages and political theater have been driven by polls, punditry, and external forces (think Gore in earth tones, Dukakis in tank, Kerry in a swift boat) . Consequently, the American people tend to think of Democrats as "unprincipled" when compared to the "Polls? We don't change our views based on no polls!" Republicans.

The lesson? Focusing on the inner increases your chances of being a winner.

Candidates, Can You Spare Some Change?

Democratic Candidates (and, what the heck, Republicans too),

The media and the voters have decided that this is the election season of "change." And -- no surprise -- Barack Obama's campaign is the most directly associated with this campaign brand platform.

This is very good news for the Obama campaign, because now that virtually every politician has glommed onto this campaign keyword (see chart below), there is an implicit call back to the Obama change movement. As a result, every campaign now is -- at least indirectly -- an endorsement of the Obama campaign brand.

Advice for change-glomming candidates:

You're making a mistake by latching on to "change." It's taken, and all you're doing is showing that you can spot a successful trend, and follow it. That would be fine in a normal election season, but this season, you're in competition with Obama's campaign, which "owns" the trend. The media has written the narrative of Obama, which means that the brand has been set and will be continually reinforced (and eventually overplayed). Implicitly, voters are going to sense that trend followers are not change agents. So, while change-glomming might feel like the right thing to do, it's not.

I know, I know. You do represent change. Of course you do. Every candidate does. But the "change" brand is taken. Consider it trademarked. You need to be creative and come up with a brand that is distinctive in the political marketplace of ideas. Even messaging maven David Axelrod agrees: “unless a message authentically reflects the messenger, it’s likely to fail.”

The right thing to do is to now is to conduct a rapid brand evolution program within your respective campaigns. Assemble you key staffers (from all levels) and brainstorm and whiteboard all of the key attributes of your candidacy. Coalesce these ideas, boil them down, and settle on one-to-five words that describe why you're the best person to win the nomination --and then to be President.

You then need to map these concepts against what you think (or, preferably, know) the majority of the voters are looking for. In other words, once your find your core, distinct message, you then need to ensure that your core, distinct message is relevant.

Some examples:

• Ready (Clinton)
• Leadership You can Count On (Clinton)
  
• Principled Leadership (Edwards)
  
• Principled Change (Edwards) [and puts a knife in Obama]
  
• Taking America Back (Edwards)

Advice for change candidates

This might be very difficult to digest, but you're going to need to get beyond "change" as your campaign evolves. I know, it sounds like asinine advice to a campaign that has the most successful brand of this election season. But hear me out.

You should not abandon change. But you need to build from it, creating a brand tree. This means viewing "change" as a foundational brand trunk, but then growing specific brand branches to keep ahead of curve. Keeping ahead will ensure that you avoid:

- attacks on change. The longer "change" is out there, the more time for competition (Democratic and Republican) to develop and deploy effective foils and cynicism around change.

- the "spare change" effect. Change is good, but too much change can weight down your pocket with too much of too little. Meaning, change is a big idea that doesn't mean much once you get beyond the big idea.

The good news is that there seems to be plenty of growth potential for the change brand. The challenge, though, is to define brand branches to grow from the brand trunk. This means looking at the hot political topics -- foreign policy, ecology, economy and the nation's spirit -- and developing brand platforms around each of these as extensions to the change brand trunk.

Some examples:

• Change means: Regaining the Moral High Ground
  (foreign policy)
• Change means: Treating Mother Earth with Respect
  (ecology)
• Change means: A Re-energized, In-Demand Workforce
  (economy)
• Change means: One Nation, Under G*d, Indivisible
  (nation's spirit)
  

Advice for all Democratic candidates

There is a risk of relying too heavily on the "change" brand: a sudden shift of the political status quo could blunt its effectiveness.

George W. Bush's legacy will be firmly grounded in political success (i.e., having a Republican successor). So you need to be mindful of the potential for a shifting political dynamic in 2008. Bush will likely pull all the levers he can to create a political environment friendly to a Republican nominee. If Bush succeeds in creating a more positive outlook in 2008, "change" won't resonate as much as it does now -- just like the Iraq War doesn't resonate as much merely 4 months after it was widely considered to be the #1 campaign issue.

------------------------
Number of times "change" is used on campaign websites:*

Barack Obama: 66,600
John Edwards: 23,800
Hillary Clinton: 3,670
Bill Richardson: 1,450
Mitt Romney: 952
Mike Huckabee: 795
John McCain: 347

*Conducted through a basic Google search [site:campaign_site_name change -climate] to exclude any pages where "climate change" would be the topic. Obviously, not all instances of "change" represent the campaign concept of change, and the number of hits are likely relative to the size and depth of the respective websites.

The Secret Sauce for Democratic Candidates

Democratic Candidates for President,

While OKR is not in the business of siding with a particular nominee, Their Karl Rove's insertion into my domain forced my hand to provide Barack Obama campaign advice.

So, in the spirit of fairness, below are messaging strategies and talking points for each viable candidate (i.e., at least 5% in national polls or at least $5M raised). If deployed effectively, this "secret sauce" has the potential to catapult one campaign message over another.

Creating deep impact amongst all the campaign noise requires using one of the best Republican campaign tactics seen in the past decade: Using your supposed negatives as your strong suit. Doing so challenges the conventional wisdom and forces people to take a break from the media-driven narrative and truly ponder your candidacy for a moment.

[FYI - Barack Obama: See the 2nd half of the previous column for your OKR advice]

Memo to Joe Biden: Admit That You Have Limitations

Joe,

Your nascent campaign has a bit of kindling lit beneath it, and even Zogby is saying that you might have a shot at this after all. But simply telling people you knew all along how to solve the Iraq problem just isn't going to do the trick (nor should it).

You need to address head-on what many are intuitively concerned about: that you are a one-trick pony -- a great Secretary of Defense, but no President.

To change this dynamic, you need to attack this perception head-on... by agreeing completely. No excuses, no blather. Just meet the voters face-to-face with the fact that you are uniquely passionate about America's role in the world, and that our nation's future is directly tied to how well we clean up the mess we are in today. Tell them that Joe Biden is the only candidate that has the passion, leadership and expertise to recapture America's position in the world. And tell the voters that you'll bring on a strong and capable cabinet to bring the right focus to the other critical issues that need to be dealt with at the same time: economy, health care, jobs, innovation.

Yes, I know you know you can lead in all of these areas. But that's not the point. The point is the narrative has been written, and you need to acknowledge this and work from there to be as relevant as possible.

So, what's the positive way to say that you have limitations? "Joe Biden is committed to recapturing America's leadership in the world."

Memo to Hillary Clinton: Admit That You're Not Perfect

Hillary,

Because you have old-school strategist Mark Penn by your side, there is little-to-no chance that anyone from your campaign will read this or pay any heed to my advice. Still, I want to be on the record that Mark Penn represents last decade's politics that simply doesn't feel very relevant, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant every day. Only time will tell if this tried-and-true-yet-semi-antiquated approach to politics can hold out long enough for you to win the race.

If you were to engage in post-modern politics, I would advise you to go-to-market with the antithesis of your current "coronation persona" -- start looking more human (vs. superhuman) and real (vs. political machine). In other words, show the voters that you're not perfect.

Contrary to what people say, nobody really wants a perfect candidate. They want someone who is tough (you), smart (you), can manage power (you), and can overcome adversity (you). But they also want someone that reminds them of themselves (not you). Because of all these wonderful traits of yours, people will actually become suspect that you're putting on airs, and as a result question your sincerity and integrity. Or, if you're seen as too good for the room, there will be an intuitive concern that you will create a bad environment for good decision making in your administration (like our buddy Dubya).

Tell the voters what's got you concerned about the presidential race. Tell the voters about your internal struggles as a Senator and First Lady as you tried to balance your inner idealism with your knowledge of the realities of the political process. Tell the voters that you're only running because of your passionate belief that America needs Democrats back in power -- and you truly believe that you are the only candidate that could possibly know what it'll take to beat the Republican Machine.

While it might sound counter-intuitive to your trusted beltway advisers, show the voters that you're not perfect, and they will trust you more.


Memo to Chris Dodd: Admit That You're An Afterthought

Chris,

You have the the money, but are lacking traction with voters. You suffer from Senatoritis, and it won't be easy to shake. Yet, your style is strong, moral and clear. You have the make-up to be an executive. So, how to begin gaining traction?

Starting now, make your own position in the race the focus of your candidacy. Turn your message from experience and wisdom to the underdog campaign -- the little campaign that could. The fact that you have a lot of money in the bank means that you can actually promote yourself as the underdog on television and radio ads now.

Get the voters involved in your uphill battle for relevancy, and invite them to join you as you look to climb the biggest mountain in your political career. If you get people invested in your story, they will be investing themselves in you through the process.

How to admit you're an afterthought as a way to turn your campaign around? "You probably don't know much about Chris Dodd -- and that's a problem that needs to be fixed, now."


Memo to John Edwards: Fair or Not, You're the only Viable White Guy

OK, let's quickly get this out of the way: I'm not advocating that you play the race or gender card. What I am advocating is that you own the fact that you are the most likely to win the Presidential race when paired up against each Republican candidate. You, John, are the candidate with the least risk because you do not bring any untested configurations to the campaign: gender or race.

To be clear, I do not see gender or race being meaningful factors in the 2008 race, no matter who wins the nomination on either side. But the fact is that there will be some who do (or at least believe that there are others who do). And only you bring the Democrats a form-fitting candidate that represents true progressive values with no compromise -- all in an attractive, uncontroversial, tested configuration.

Clearly, you do not want to overtly admit that you're the only white guy. But you do want to obliquely characterize your campaign as the most likely to win the general election. This means playing directly into the concerns and fears of voters. I openly acknowledge that this is not the most upstanding approach, but in can be an effective one if you believe that you are the only candidate that can deliver Dems the White House in 2008.

Now that the Rovian-style fear-based politics are out of the way, there are some positive, purer angles you should take as well:

• You're the only candidate that has been part of a national presidential ticket (2004)
• You're the only candidate that will not compromise with the right wing Republicans (i.e., you know right from wrong and will not compromise on these values)
  
• You're the only Democrat that is a values-first candidate (i.e., you'll do what's right vs. what's popular [Clinton] or agreeable [Obama])
  
• Like Hillary, you've been tested and vetted, and like Obama, you represent change.
  

In other words...

"In case you didn't notice, Edwards is the best of both worlds." Oh, and a white male.


Memo to democratic campaign staffers: Want to be a hero?

Send an email to jon [at] ourkarlrove . com if you are looking for embellishments or extensions to the strategies and advice provided in this column.

Memo to Karl Rove: We already have Our Karl Rove

Karl Rove,

What's wrong? Is the Republican field so abjectly depressing, politically savaged and land-mine-lined that you find more safety and comfort flexing your political muscles to help Democrats? If your recent political analysis for the Financial Times is any indication, then you better have a "Plan B" because not only do we already have Our (own) Karl Rove, but your analysis was one-dimensional. In fact, your opinions are actually sound and are in-line with many other commentators, which is why they have so little value.

Based on this recent article and prior analysis, it's becoming quite clear that your brand outstrips your capabilities as a political strategist. It turns out that you rode a political wave generated by conservative movements from every conceivable angle (security, religious, economic, moralistic, individualistic), and were then able to take credit by virtue of predicting that this perfect political storm would win Bush elections. In essence, you did exactly what you claim Bill Clinton did with the economy: you successfully took credit for something that was already happening.

In an effort to re-claim Our Karl Rove's turf from the insurgent Karl Rove, I will break with tradition and provide a presidential candidate with a political strategy prior to the nomination. Readers should feel free to publicly compare and contrast the opinions provided here with those of Their Karl Rove.

Memo to Barack Obama: Do Not Run Against Hillary

Barack,

Contrary to the opinions of the media elite (which now include media-elite-hater Karl Rove), your best shot at winning the nomination is not to cast doubt on Hillary. Instead, you need to focus on your positive brand attributes: an independently-minded, globally-savvy, smart, capable, strategic candidate with fresh ideas that will inspire every American to feel good about being an American again. You can lift us up.

You simply don't need to bash your opponents to make your points if your points are self-evident. Consider these examples:

"I want to lift this country up out of its malaise; out of this funk; and into tomorrow with my vision for America. A vision rooted in the principles of our founding fathers: liberty, justice, equality, and the pursuit of happiness."

"I am running for President not because I need to be President, but because I am confident that I am uniquely qualified to signal to Americans -- and to the world -- that America is ready to turn the corner. That America is ready to take on our challenges head-first. That America is ready to rise again as a great nation that not only earns the respect of our allies, but, importantly, earns the respect of those who might find it easier to hate us."

"I am quite aware that some of my colleagues think that I'm lacking the experience needed to take our country forward. While it's true that I might not have been a 5-term senator, a governor, or First Lady, I have spent my whole life being a leader. A leader of people, of ideas, of spirit and of serious solutions to serious problems."

In these examples, you are not only focusing on your positive brand attributes, but you are implicitly drawing a distinction between you and your competitors. It's positive sales, and a lesser candidate could not pull this off. Don't let conventional wisdom drag you down into being a conventional politician.

I know that you have too much respect for your democratic colleagues to truly throw them under the bus. It's a good slate, and you are too polished and decent to feel comfortable engaging in mud-slinging on the national stage. No matter what your advisers tell you, don't do anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. Barack Obama is compelling to America only when he's comfortable in his own skin.

But being comfortable doesn't mean you can't be tough. In fact, there is a real toughness behind the thoughtfulness in your character. You need to display it at the right time, but you can't feign it. For example, since Hillary is not a threat to national security, it's disingenuous to concentrate your toughness on her. Instead, you need to channel your toughness through issues that require being and appearing tough -- like national security issues. For instance, show America your strength by talking tough about the small number of extremists who are looking to plan another domestic attack. Explain how you'll be tough by disarming them before they can do any damage. Explain how you will not accept any foreign nation to harbor, help, or fund any violent extremists. You must keep your focus narrow to the areas where toughness is required. This distinction will separate you from Hillary's and Bush's broad stroke approach that casts terrorist nets as wide as Iran's National Guard.

Of course, there are also specific policy areas where you do need to convey your vision and how it is unique and compelling. But like applying for a job, it's all about selling your unique qualifications -- not dissing your competition. You can win this through your new kind of politics. Don't fall for the "he's being soft" rhetoric -- it's not about being soft. It's about being the best option.

Remember: In sales, facts and figures help get you in the door, but once you're in the running, emotions close the deal. You need to use your passion, conviction and confidence in concert to be The Closer. Nobody else in the Democratic field has your closing skills.

America has let you into their homes to make the sale. They trust you. Now it's simply about closing the deal.

The Common Good is Good, not Great

Democrats,

You have unofficially rolled out a new go-to-market term: "The Common Good." The Wall Street Journal did a nice write-up on it. In essence, it's symbolic rhetoric lifted from Roman Catholicism designed to put Democrats on higher moral ground when talking about economic opportunity and equity.

Congratulations on considering the ideas being written about here at OKR for years: Words matter. Symbols matter. Philosophy matters. And how you use all these bits in concert matters.

As far as snappy phrases go, it's good (especially when handicapping for Democratic ability in this area)... but it's certainly not great.

The good:

• It provides moderate cover for talking about taxation (especially progressive).
• It's a positive message (after all, it has the word 'good' in it).
• It has strong ties to the strategically critical Catholic community.
• It will speak to people who feel like they're common-folk.

The not-so-good:

• It sounds generic (after all, it has the word 'common' in it), and Americans like to be told we're special.
• It risks alienating those who do not feel like they're part of 'the common.'
  
• It could sound like a veiled attack on individualism. Be careful; don't attack a fundamental construct of American culture -- roll with it.
  
• It could sound like a codeword for socialist, big-government programs. Make sure not to exclusively tie this phrase to top-down programs.

A very small tweak could make this a much better catch-phrase for Democrats:

The Greater Good

The Greater Good is quite similar to the Common Good, but it has some additional features:

• "Greater" fits the American ethos better than "common."
• "Greater" can evoke a spiritual, religious element for those who see things this way.
• "Greater" means the same as "common" for those who see things this way.
• The root word of "greater" is 'great' -- and what political party wouldn't want the concept of 'great' to be a part of their philosophical core?

While it's not surprising that the word 'common' passed through all the poll-tested gates in Democratic circles, it does not strike the right tone for the less traditional democratic voters (e.g., disenfranchised whites who see Democrats advocating for every constituency but them). And, since there appears to be no serious negatives with swapping out common for greater, it's seriously worth considering this update.

Note: For all of those candidates trying to catch Hillary, you can use this tip to get ahead of her in the rhetoric race.

Democrats: Extend an Invitation to the Axis of Evil

Democrats & Fellow Citizens,

It's happening again. The Bush administration is re-framing reality so effectively that most people (even those of us paying attention) are being taken by another shell game of magnificent proportions. But before we dive into what's happening now, it's important to look back at what just happened...

Reality Distortion

Last time, the Bush administration's re-framing of reality successfully coaxed most of the country -- including the press and Democratic politicians -- into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat, ready to blow us up with nukes, anthrax, or whatever it was that Saddam supposedly had hidden away in his little lair in Baghdad.

In effect, the Bush administration created a reality distortion field. A reality distortion field is a term that has been widely used to describe Apple's Steve Jobs in the technology sector, but it's also quite applicable to Bush & friends: Modern Republicans have proven to be naturals at framing new "realities" (as they see them) based on spurious and speculative information. Then, they effortlessly convey these "realities" to the masses in a way that makes them appear unmistakably and unerringly right... and righteous. Doing this distorts the reality in ways that are difficult to prove, and easy to subscribe to. They distort reality just enough to make their "new reality" sound legitimate, even though it's not.

The Iraq reality distortion field was able to withstand real reality for three full years during which the U.S. eviscerated any shred of goodwill it had left in the pressure-cooked Middle East. And only after three years did the press, Dems, and most everyone else come to their senses and promise "never again."

I hate to break the news, but...here we go again.

Here's a quick test to see if you've been trapped within the latest foreign policy reality distortion field unleashed by this Republican administration: What Islamic country is autocratic, out-of-control, terrorist-harboring, WMD-selling, has nuclear weapon manufacturing abilities, and is run by a President that lacks in democratic convictions, speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and took control of his country by military coup?

If you answered "Iran" then you've already fallen into the Bush/Cheney trap of re-framing reality in a way that simply doesn't represent reality - the reality distortion field. Worse, the country described above -- which is not Iran -- is considered to be an ally to this administration and most Republicans.

So, why are we all talking about Iran? Because Dick Cheney has a laser-like focus on Iran like nobody's business. This aggressive, manipulative positioning of Iran as the latest source of all the U.S.'s problems in the Middle East (i.e., Hezbolah, Iraq, nukes... you name it) is not only misguided, but incredibly misleading. And when I say that this is reminiscent of the Iraq drumbeat back in 2002, don't confuse this comparison with knee-jerk liberal screaming. Here at OKR, we have substantive concerns around this newfound "love to hate Iran" refrain that go well beyond predictable partisan emotions.

This Iranian focus has a two-fold effect:

1. Iran gives this administration something new to blame for all the problems they've had in securing Iraq.

2. Blaming Iran conveniently and effectively deflects attention from this administration's failure to deal with Pakistan -- the multi-dimensional menace to U.S. security [the answer to the test above].

The Problem with Pakistan

Under Pervez Musharraf's rule, Pakistan is the underlying U.S. security threat in the region. Yet because the Bush administration has a president in Pakistan that is compliant with U.S. demands, the U.S. turns a blind eye to the astounding problems that Pakistan creates. This goes to show how much this administration values loyalty over everything else, including U.S. security. A loyal Musharraf makes the Bush administration believe that he is an ally, thereby deeming Pakistan an official U.S. ally.

So, what's wrong with Musharraf?

1. He was not democratically elected, nor does he endorse democratic elections.
2. He does not have full control of his country, allowing Al Q'aida and Bin Laden a safe haven within his uncontrolled country borders
3. He allowed a massive nuclear weapon trading scheme to happen under his nose, where real WMDs were sold to the highest bidders around the world (including potential terrorist groups)
4. He is duplicitous -- telling his country one thing and telling our country something entirely different. Which Musharraf is to be believed?
   

This is what's meant by "here we go again": Ignoring the Pakistani Problem is a flagrant violation of all U.S. standards that have been set by this very administration. Yet, this administration has once again successfully created a reality distortion field where the conventional wisdom is now that Iran is the next big danger, and Pakistan isn't even part of any security conversation in our country.

This is dangerous. The nation once again is being guided by distorted reality, and it's quite disturbing to see it happen all over again when most of us should, by now, know just a bit better.

But it's not enough to just talk about it. We need to demand more from the press, our politicians, and our fellow citizens. Let's not let ourselves once again get distracted and misled by a dangerously misguided administration.

Here are some talking points for all of us to use as we call, write, and communicate with the press and our politicians:

• Why is Pakistan an U.S. ally if they are harboring Al Q'aida and Bin Ladin?
  
• What's stopping America from putting our full energy into weeding out Al Q'aida in Pakistan?
• Why is an undemocratic leader in Pakistan our ally while we spend our blood and treasure trying to introduce Democracy in Iraq? Isn't that a double-standard?
  
• If U.S. policies vary from country to country, does this Republican administration really have principles?
  
• Which is more dangerous to America now: a country that is trying to create nuclear weapons or a country that already has them and his harboring Al Q'aida's leadership?
  
• Why doesn't the so-called Bush Doctrine apply to Pakistan?
• If the people responsible for 9/11 are in Pakistan, why are we focused so much on Iraq and Iran?

Note: While the Axis of Evil reference in the title is designed to be catchy and clever, we should never use George Bush's phraseology framework to talk about contemporary political issues. There is no Axis of Evil. There are countries that actively work against us, but that doesn't make them evil. It makes them, at the very worst, enemies. Evil has a much higher bar -- one that should be reserved for the likes of Dick Cheney.

Despite Petraeus Theater, Democrats "Get" Foreign Policy

Democrats,

The Republicans may have won the Battle of Petraeus, but they are losing in the war of ideas and brand equity.

Americans don't like losing wars, but they've certainly lost faith in the Republicans' ability to conduct American foreign policy. While it is true that the Republicans still present themselves as being the party that knows how to be tough, brawn without brains is no longer acceptable to the majority of Americans. Petraeus might be trusted as a General, but he's not trusted as a Republican.

Don't get sucked into the Petraeus theater. The need to hide behind a General shows just how weak Republicans actually are. In response to this weakness, the Republicans pulled a reverse punch on the MoveOn.org ad. Democrats, sadly, fell for it. Apparently, it's still open-mic night every night in Democratic party strategy meetings.

Yet these are all details. The real challenge ahead is changing the narrative. But how can we create a positive narrative when Democrats seem confused and weak on Iraq? Let's start with this truism: While Democrats might not know exactly what to do, Republicans certainly don't know what they're doing.

Of course that doesn't speak well for Democrats, but politics is about comparisons, not absolutes. Don't get hung up on your problems -- focus on the bigger, broader, more troubling problems in the opposition party. While focusing on how much worse Republicans are isn't going to solve any real problems within the Democratic party, it's just good enough when there are only two political parties.

Democrats -- if you boil this down, this means you are now the party that "gets" foreign policy.

Decide, as a party, that Democrats are now the "best and the brightest" in foreign policy, and that no other party has the chops to get us out of the mess that we're in. Focus on this because, frankly, America needs someone who sounds like they're smart at foreign policy.

A rising tide lifts all ships, so the Democratic party needs to begin to rally around the belief that Democrats are the 21st century's answer to knowing how to navigate the seven seas and seven continents, and Democrats can steer America out of the stormy waters created by Republicans.

Some additional talking points:

• Republicans know how to get into wars, but Democrats know how to win them.
• Democrats want to grab success out of the jaws of defeat.
• Our overcommitment to Iraq has created a violent welfare state.
  
• Republicans vote for Iraqi welfare, yet vote against American welfare. Makes you think.
• Republicans created our foreign policy problems, and now it's time once again for Democrats to clean up the mess.
  

This approach to creating a new narrative is truly Rovian. We all know that Democrats as a party don't really "get it" yet, however, Rovian strategies are optimistic by definition: Repeat an idea enough times, get enough people to believe it, and it might just come true.

It's trickle-down reality. Better to trickle down reality onto Republicans than to have Republicans trickle down reality onto you.