Correctly Impolitic

There was an article in the paper today that was a bit disturbing… I’m sure there was more than one but I was drawn to this one because the woman who was used as an example was named Gorman and my maiden name was Groman.  Yes, it is another example of “it’s all about me” but that is not what was disturbing. The article was about a technology that permits you to call someone and go straight to their voice mail instead of talking to them. This Gorman woman wanted to break up with someone she liked, but didn’t want to have any unpleasant or unnecessary confrontation. (Clearly she wasn’t a Groman).  She actually was quoted as saying that if she didn’t like him it would have been easy to talk to him directly but since she did like him, a conversation would have been too difficult.  OH Pleeeeese!

The article went on to explain other equally evasive technologies, like one where you can set your phone to call another phone and leave a message while you’re out not doing what you were supposed to be doing (very confusing), and my own personal favorite which (skipped to e-mail) provided background sounds that mimic being in a traffic jam - so when you’re late for work it sounds like you are stuck in traffic.

Then there were some quotes from people who use these technologies and even some admissions about using the technology to mask cowardly behavior.  Although cowardice is not the nicest of qualities, I wasn’t as annoyed by that as I was the people who thought that avoiding a real conversation was absolutely fine. The  “It’s too difficult and time consuming to have to explain my feelings or behavior to anyone regardless of the relationship or their feelings” is yet one more example of the kind of self indulgent and entitled people so many of us have become.  (Some of us have not, and you know who you are.)

Anyway,  Like so many other things in a dynamic and changing world, we are hard pressed to think about the consequences of our development.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if the people who invented these technologies hadn’t been forced to have face to face-or at least person to person — conversations with their investors?  There would be no technology.  Or if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett had avoided having any conversation about the state of education in the world, and had just left voice mails for one another. I hardly think any of their generous giving would have ever gotten far enough to have the kind of impact it has had on the world.  But let’s get back to Ms. Gorman not Groman.  I don’t know her, but if the Times had used me as an example of inept behavior I would find it upsetting. She works in marketing.  What kind of a person, who makes a living by understanding “people and markets,”
doesn’t have the depth of character to offer another human being a simple explanation.  I don’t buy the “It takes too much time.  I didn’t want to have any unnecessary confrontation” explanation.
Talk about an absence of depth. How shallow does a person need to be not to empathize with what other person in the relationship might have felt.  She liked the guy and didn’t want to what…. hurt his feelings?  have to explain herself and her decision? take a little time away for hair and nails treatment? or was afraid to hear what he might have wanted to say.  It’s not the cowardice I have a problem with, it’s the total lack of interest and character.

The technology is going to continue to develop.  People will take advantage of every improvement and anything that makes life ‘easier.’  That’s the way it should be. There is no law which says life can’t be simple and pleasant.  My concern is that if gone unnoticed, the new technologies will also take away something we cherish-like our humanity.

My beloved needs to eat more blueberries.  This perfectly plump, round, moist, sweet little taste of fruit heaven, is supposed to have a positive effect on memory.  I have been eating tons of them everyday in hopes that the episodes of things like,  I’m on my phone shouting about the fact that I can’t find my phone,  will seriously diminish.  Or the frequency of the times when I’m holding my car keys and racing around the house looking for my car keys, will become fewer.  My pal  Soozie says everyday our lives begins with a treasure hunt.  That’s certainly is true in our house.

A few years before one of  my favorite uncles died, he got lost finding his way to his house.  We found him not far away sitting in a parking lot in tears.  It was the last time he drove, but it was also the first  time I had ever seen him frightened.  He was an artist and a flyer and had been under enemy fire in WWII, so seeing him devastated by a trip to the grocery was beyond horrible.  But now it happens to me.  It’s not that I get lost, it’s just that I can’t remember the best route to get somewhere, so I find myself driving in the wrong direction.

When you are young you have so little to remember that your memory appears infallible.  You can remember names and dates and even where you put some treasured or essential item… like a recipe or the keys to your house.  But as you get older your mind fills up with crap and before you know it, you don’t remember your spouse’s date of birth.  And it’s not only that your mind fills with poop. We are now forced to remember hundreds of words and numbers so that our lives remain secure-passwords and log-ins and God knows how many bank passcodes and account numbers.  Here’s an embarrassing example.  My friend Kerry and I have a joint checking/debit account we use for entertainment-dining out, shows, movies etc.  It prevents us from having to do that “divide up the check” thing.  We just use our card.  A few weeks ago I thought I better check to see how much money we had left in the account.  (We have been having a great time spending). I couldn’t remember our password or ID.    I called Kerry to see if she remembered. No luck.  Neither of us had any idea about the names or codes we  (to be honest I) had selected.  So I had to go to my branch and find out-yes it was mortifying and yes, I did finally write and put them in a safe place, but I’ll be darned if I remember where that is.

Anyway, that is the reason Barack Obama should be the President. Was that a stupid transition or what?  OK I’ll try again.   There are now a generation of people who understand all the technical information some of us deign to forget. They thrive on it.  John McCain lives in a world where other people remember or do stuff for him, a world where fighting a war rather than negotiating a peace makes sense,  where bread costs a $1 a loaf and milk will always be $2 a gallon. Where hummers are normal and desirable (whether or not you need to go off road), so drill more rather than look for alternatives for oil , and the military knows what’s good for the country.   Obama is one of those people who gets the change in technology and the way we will have to live in the future.  It’s why everybody’s kids love him.  They don’t see his race, age or lack of experience as a negative - they get him and his rhetoric about what their lives might be.  That’s the transition, now we can go back to that’s why Obama should be the President.  It’s all about looking at the world in a different way.  It’s like when someone asks you how to describe where you live. You can say the street, the town, the country, the world, or the earth.  It’s just a different way to think about who you are and from where you come.

We all need to move past the 50’s 60′ or even 90’s thinking about the possibilities in life.  Who would have imagined -even 10 years ago-a “Bluetooth” or an “i phone”.  Ten years ago we were carrying cell phones that were bigger than our TV’s - well maybe not HDTV’s… but who would have considered those.  Or the “i pod” or a “Blackberry” Or the face book, My Space.  Nor would we ever have conceived of how annoying they can be. Who would ever have conceived of all the stuff we now have available?  Other than the inventors or the geeks.   There is a generation of older people that can learn to use these incredible tools, but they don’t really understand the impact.  They think about the limits rather than what can be limitless. (Thankfully we’re not that generation).

The technology has changed the culture-for the good and the bad.  The bad news-people are not as courteous about space, and manners seem lost in an airport or on a train where everyone is having a conversation with someone for whom you don’t give a damn.  Politics has become impersonal and distant - voice mails and e-mails have replaced face to face contact.  But the good news is that people around the globe are connected and interdependent in unimaginable ways.  The leader of our nation has to understand all this in a way that someone over 70 never will.  John McCain might be a nice guy (with terrible judgment about the commercials he runs), but I bet he doesn’t remember where he puts his keys and more importantly, his mentality will always be the cold war instead of hot link.

The latest political conversation is most confusing. It revolves around the question of Senator Obama’s trip overseas, and oil. My feeling about all the rhetoric is, you can’t have it both ways and, once again, perception is reality.

The McCain people need to make up their minds about exactly what they want Obama to do. First they say he doesn’t know anything about Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan because he hasn’t ever been there. Then when he goes to these places and is well received they say, it’s all a political ploy and why did he need to go there. Do they want him to be schooled in the way of the world or do they want him to just stay at home and be a long distance decider. They have released so many conflicting commercials that I’m no longer sure they know what they want. Are the same people making and buying the media for these spots-it looks like there may be two different campaigns doing the buy. The commercial I saw this morning first shows Obama with the troops having what looked like a pretty good time. But the point of the spot was that Obama spurned the wounded troops in Germany when he didn’t stop by and say hello.

Additionally, the energy ads are also confusing. McCain cannot talk about the energy crisis (he doesn’t suffer from it because he’s a rich guy), while talking about drilling for more oil, rather than funding research and development for alternative energy resources. The ads that blame Obama for the oil crisis are ludicrous. To actually think the American people will believe that any Senator is responsible for the high cost of oil is ridiculous. While it may be true that if people want more oil they have to elect John Sidney McCain, it is only because he will allow his friends in the oil companies to make more money and continue to keep us dependent on this substance oh so foul. (What about the commodity speculators) Personally, I think they should both be talking to T. Boone Pickens, who seems to have an actual, sensible, alternative energy plan.

The Obama campaign explained that up until the time they got to Jordan, he was on a Congressional delegation so they could visit whomever.. not the Palestinians- but whomever else wanted to chat. They insist that, although the Pentagon didn’t say they couldn’t visit the troops, the campaign felt that (since by the time they got to Germany they were using campaign funds), it would be viewed as using the wounded vets for political purposes - is this confusing enough? Anyway, they didn’t go and McCain feels terrible because Obama dissed the men and women who have served the country so well. Nevermind it was a needless war based on a lie and McCain continues to support it). We know, however, that if Obama had gone, McCain would be screaming about using those who have served the country so well, for political gain.

What I find a bit disturbing is the rhetoric of both campaigns. Obviously, I think McCain is desperately trying to get some attention and thinks he has traction here because wounded Vets not getting the attention they deserve tugs, at our hearts. If only McCain had thought about this before, there would be no wounded Vets, but that’s another conversation. Clearly, there will be no agreement about whether Obama should or shouldn’t have gone, but when Robert Gibbs (no longer Communication Director or Press Secretary, now Senior Campaign Strategist), says Obama would never have used the “wounded warriors for political gain,” and repeats that four or five times you know he’s talking from campaign script and if it is not dishonest, the repetition of script is certainly annoying.

Here’s what I think is happening and they all better be careful because they are treading on the sensibilities of a frustrated and pissed off electorate. The McCain people are crafting a picture of John McCain as a “straight talking loveable down home guy who will always tell the truth.” This is happening at the same time they are painting a disturbing portrait of Obama as a guy who can admit when he’s wrong, and doesn’t get what real people think or feel. And, in some ways the Obama people are playing right into their hands because their script is sketchy and inadequate. Two examples of this come to mind: the success of the surge, and no visit to the ‘wounded warriors” in Germany. For whatever Obama’s rhetoric about the two subjects, the impression is just what McCain wants it to be. It smacks of Hillary’s inability to say she was wrong when she voted for the war. It doesn’t matter what the reason is … the perception IS reality. Someone in the Obama campaign needs to write a new “change” script and modify using the “experienced” Republican tactic of repeating the old script enough times that the public finally says “OK, I believe, I believe” and just moves on to the next topic. No one can have it both ways– no matter right or wrong.

In 1976 Milton Schapp, the Governor of Pennsylvania decided to run for President. He was one of seven or eight people who made the same decision.  The difference between Governor Schapp and everyone else running was that no matter how hard the Governor tried, he couldn’t get any press to cover any of his announcements - so no one knew he was running.  In fact, it wasn’t until Jack Germond wrote a piece about the Governor’s  inability to get anyone to acknowledge that he was a candidate, that any of the public knew there had been another hat thrown into the ring.  It was pretty hysterical-not for Schapp and a staff person we called “the grape”, but for everyone else involved in any of the other campaigns-which included unknown soon-to-be luminaries like Governor Carter, Cong. Udall, Senator Bayh, and the ‘Ron Paul’-like character Senator Fred Harris.

It is unfortunate to have to report that John McCain is suffering from Schapparitis.  He is just one of many candidates who have anguished from the dreaded ailment, but most of the time it has gone unnamed. This is not the disease caused by having Milton in any part of your name  because McCain’s middle name is Sidney-and before anyone goes on and on about my picking on Sidneys or Miltons, it was my dad’s name and I actually kept a straight face when I was required to divulge that information - which is not always the case when I find myself referring to John Sidney McCain. No, this is the political disease you get when you think you are not getting enough attention from the media.  It causes you to do totally ridiculous things like make media luggage tags that decry your second place status.  It may cause you to give speeches in which you make mistakes and where the information makes little or no sense. And, it has the appearance of whining, which is exceedingly unattractive in a Presidential candidate.  It does puts you in the public eye but sometimes being a public which is blind is preferable.  Oh, and it may cause you to make scheduling decisions that are responsive instead of proactive. Which means, in human talk-someone else is setting the agenda and you are merely responding. A very bad idea.

The consequences of this disease are far reaching, but the symptom’s identified initially give the appearance of running from venue to venue and pressing your nose, ear or any body part, against the glass-if there is one-otherwise it’s the door, or any partition and beg to be let in.   It doesn’t happen and you end up wallowing in self pity and doubt.  If  it is not controlled with medication, (or a wise strategist - kind of an oxymoron) it can be fatal to your future.

And talk about stupid - maybe we weren’t , but this is worth mentioning. As if there aren’t enough stupid people perpetuating ugly rumors about the Democratic candidate, they had to deal with cover of the “New Yorker” — which was neither clever nor was it funny-although they claimed brilliant satire. Since most of America merely passes the New Yorker on the stands and never looks inside, all the public sees is Obama is a Muslim and his wife is a terrorist.     If they asked my pal Kat, she would rightly have told them that it is only credible satire if the next edition is a picture of McCain wearing a diaper in a wheel chair with a hearing horn and standing next to him is Cindy in a prom dress carrying a designer purse with money pouring out from all sides.  But that is not what  an elitist would call smart. Here’s the bottom line.  Or the top line depending where you start your sentences. John McCain is a guy who  (only a few months ago) was beloved by the media. They couldn’t get enough of him and the Straight Talk Express.  Now, I’m afraid the only thing that would actually get the media to pay attention to his campaign would be if Obama were run over by that Straight Talking bus.  And I’m sure that must have crossed the mind of more than one of the staffers - off the record.  It’s unfortunate for the McCain campaign but Obama has had a brilliant overseas trip.  He not only looks Presidential he sounds like a leader. He has answered and asked important questions and he has made actual policy statements like he is not about to let the Generals (who have a vested interest in war - my words not his), determine White House policy. I love when the President actually has a vision for what he wants his administration to be-and it is not about pandering to a misdirected military or a fear of being called unpatriotic because you are thoughtful rather than reactive.

So what does John McCain have to do to get back in the race?  He has to stop running against an idea and stop running in favor of the past.  He has to start to define who he can be and where he wants to take the country. The problem for him is that his thinking is all yesterday and the voter is looking for tomorrow.  And no one wants to find a cure for a disease-they just want a vaccine to prevent it.

When we were kids the guy (usually male and young) at the local sweet shop (often attached to a drug store) who prepared sundaes, milkshakes, sodas and egg creams, was called a soda jerk.  Although the actual derivation of the word is unclear, the job title was not in any way a negative term.  It was a designation and the guy was not necessarily a jerk -his occupation was simply to make sodas.  It was an occupation, not necessarily a career, because it occupied his time but he aspired to move on professionally, unless he owned the drug store.

Unfortunately, with the passage of time, drugstores have become chains that sell sodas from  refrigerated cases, and Diners have servers who may or may not prepare the drinks. So there are no traditional soda jerks anymore.  I hadn’t thought about the disappearance of the soda jerk until a few days ago.  By way of explanation, I am involved in a not very important controversy with the employees (they call themselves “baristas”) of a small coffee shop (Murky Coffee)  in Virginia.  The baristas (defined by the dictionary as a person who works in a coffee shop), seem to have the time, not only to make a latte, but to respond to anything said about them on the internet.  Anyway, their response got me to thinking that in this case it would probably be more fitting to refer to the Murky employees as “coffee jerks” - and I mean that in the nicest possible way - because they have replaced the soda jerk in pop culture.  Admittedly, one reason I prefer the term jerk, is that it’s too hard to say barista with a straight face if you are not in Italy - where they make a perfect cup of coffee that you can have any way you want.   But back to the controversy - explained using the soda jerk analogy. When there was still a soda jerk, I sometimes liked to have chocolate sprinkles in my otherwise purely vanilla milkshake.  There was never a time when the soda jerk refused to make it the way I liked it, nor did they ever say “I have to preserve the integrity of the ice cream, so I cannot mix any sprinkles in your drink”  (And it was home made, very fine ice  cream.)  A few weeks ago, when I was in Murky Coffee, I asked for an iced espresso, and was told that they would not make any espresso drinks with ice because they needed to “preserve the integrity” of the coffee.

Yesterday I blogged (http://werejustsayin.blogspot.com), about this in response to another blogger, who had a similar experience.  Well the “coffee jerks”  got all in a twitter and because I had said it was a pretentious policy, they decided to respond in kind and called me pretentious for saying that they needed to get a ‘real job’ - which was wrong of me.  They have a job, what they need is to get some really good sense and use good judgment rather than simply go along with a policy that denies a customer the right to have what they want.  Anyway, now that we cleared that up and we’re all friends, I thought I would share the definition of pretentious.  It is; making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction. I make no such claims, so  I want them to be able to call me names, but to use that particular word properly in a sentence.  That is all I am ever going to say about a place that makes up rules instead of giving a customer what they want.  But it is not all I’m going to say about rules or integrity.

I have never been good at following the rules - especially when they make no sense, or are imposed arbitrarily because it is a way to make one person more important than another. In political campaigns or situations these are the people who say “no” to every creative possibility, because it is the only way they have any power.  Think about it.  If they say yes, you just go on your way and don’t ever have to think about them again.  But if they say “no you can’t,” you have to spend a great deal of time figuring out how to convince them otherwise - or circumventing a stupid decision.   I can’t help but think that part of the “no espresso over ice” is a way to make someone who makes the rules more important than someone who pays for and drinks the consequences.   The rule is stupid but using the phrase “preserving the integrity” borders on the absurd.  Forget borders, it is absurd.

Take, for example the box of red licorice we saw at a coffee shop yesterday.  The candy was housed in a plastic container and was cut into many small pieces.  I love my red licorice in sticks, or long strings and I thought the cutting up diminished the importance of the eating experience,  but I never once thought, they need to preserve the integrity of that red licorice by making a rule that it not be sold in little pieces. (Actually, as you can see I did think it, but only to use as an example in the blog). And when we passed a group of women who were selling baked goods from a sidewalk stand to raise money for the Obama campaign,  I didn’t once mention the integrity of the action. I did think, however, isn’t it great that they were preserving (keeping alive), the old ways of raising campaign funds.  For me, (as a wonderful communication professor used to remind us, meanings are in people not in words),  integrity is not about something as unimportant as a drink or even as remarkable as raising money selling cakes and cookies.  Let’s once again try to look at a definition that makes sense in the “coffee context”.

Too hard?  You’re right.  It just doesn’t work.  Integrity can mean, keeping something in tact like the hull of a ship - but if that were the case with coffee, you wouldn’t grind the bean.   In my pal the dictionary, it is most often used as follows:  “the adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.”  Of late, you have heard it used with regard to the Presidency, Candidate behavior, the issue of torturing a prisoner, and the people responsible for high gas prices. And that’s how it should be used. Integrity is a word like trust, loyal, and honest.  All are much too important to minimize the definition by using it as a noun to talk about a bean.  Integrity is a way we want other people to think about who we are as people.  It is much bigger than a cup of coffee, a piece of licorice, or a malted milk-but any jerk would clearly understand that.

Unlike people in DC, people in NY do not take their umbrellas seriously. This means that when it starts to rain in NY, people are not able to whip out an ever present, probably tidy umbrella.  People In DC are used to an afternoon thunderstorm, but in NY nothing is that predictable.  Well, maybe that’s only somewhat true.  What is predictable is that people in NY are often caught without protection from a downpour.  But, it is NY,  where you never have to walk more than one block to buy anything you need-food, clothing, medication or a two dollar (three if you are feeling rich), umbrella. Oh, and the other thing that is predictable is that, whether you spend $2 or $3, the umbrella will break - probably within two uses.  Additionally, if you stop a New Yorker, who is attempting not to drown, and inquire how many of these inadequate umbrellas they own, the number is usually above four.  And they have no shame about making it five.

When I am walking along in the drizzle and I lift my head to see what’s coming at me, one of my favorite rain sights, is what looks like a scene from Mary Poppins on drugs. I am surrounded by a sea of black material hanging askew from metal curved sticks.  Yes, they are what were umbrellas, but they are tattered, almost unrecognizable, and there is hardly enough material to cover a small head, yet alone enough to keep an entire body dry.  So as you can imagine, people who are  actually carrying these things, look a bit washed out. Which reminds me of the last time I saw Hillary on TV.  It was an event she did with Barack, and she was totally unpoofed.

You remember that during the campaign she was all about terrific painfully colorful pantsuits with the high collars, and her hair and make-up done to perfection.  Well, I guess now that she is only going to be a Senator, she has decided to relax the look along with the hair.  I can’t help but wonder if it’s really resignation to her loss, or if she is so devasted by the humiliating rejection, that she simply doesn’t want to deal with any ‘look’.

I remember when the first I suffered my first real Presidential loss.  Although I had worked for McGovern and he lost-he didn’t do it in Massachusetts.  For whatever reason, and it might have been denial or the fact that I was having a baby, I was upset but not rocked to the core.  My first heartbreaking loss was when Mo Udall lost to Jimmy Carter.  I traveled with the campaign as Candidate staff (I was Mrs. Udall aka Tiger’s) staff person, so it was a most personal loss.  We were all in shock.  Mo kept saying things like, ” that little son of a bitch beat me?”  “Yes, Mo apparently he did”, was all we could say.  But it wasn’t easy because rejection of that magnitude (national) just can’t be comprehended - and, unlike Hillary,  Udall  never expected to win.

It’s interesting, because if you look at the other men who ran (Republican or Democrat) it is obvious that they recover from these things much easier than a woman.  “Oh well” they say, “I spent millions of someone else’s money and it’s clear the I can’t go all the way, so I might as well pack it in.”  It’s not unlike when a man has a business that fails.  Chances are good that he will pick himself up, say the same “oh well”, and start another business.  It’s just business.  He won’t hesitate to ask for loans or additional support from financial institutions. But when a woman has a business that fails, she thinks, “where did I go wrong”?  “What did I do to screw it up”? It becomes all about her failure and the embarrassment of the failure.

So you can only imagine how Hillary, having made numerous bad campaign decisions and having blown what was an expected national victory, feels about her own inadequacies and Obama’s victory.  And worse than anything, in New Hampshire, when she had a chance to reorganize and do something about the excess of her campaign spending, the stupidity and shortsightedness of her campaign staff, she did nothing. She said she found her voice, but she never found enough of a voice or the courage to say to the overpaid bloviators, “You are not serving me well and in the words of Donald Trump (who always picks himself up,) you’re fired.”

When I watched her speaking to the crowd, having just been close to dissed by Obama’s forgetting to mention her debt, my heart did go out to her.  After many years of working with her and admiring so many of her wonderful qualities I did just want to give her a hug.  I can no longer get that close to her, but I sure wish one of the people who can, would.

My pal Heidi Berenson (one of the premier media trainers,  and she actually knows what she’s doing-unlike so many PR people who are good at pretending), called me to ask if I would do some voice training for a friend of hers.  I was full time professor of communications at American University, but I loved to do hands on voice and articulation sessions on the side.  “He’s a Republican”, she said.  ” But he’s a great guy, brilliant but you should know, he works at the Washington Times” .  Brilliant, I thought and he works and the Moonie paper.  This is truly an oxymoron.  However,  I wanted to keep active in all my expertise (how’s that for a good reason to make some money - academia is not the place to get rich), so I asked what his voice problems were and I agreed to talk to him.

He called the next day.  On the phone he sounded like he had a very tight throat and his pitch was a little high but surprisingly, he also sounded like a reasonable guy and he was incredibly personable and funny.  Certainly not the kind of character you think about when you picture someone working for Reverend Moon.  “What is it that you hope to accomplish”, I asked in the initial conversation. “I don’t like the way I sound”.  He said.  He also told me that he wanted to make that giant leap into electronic media.  He, like me, probably wanted to make some money-which, as I said, you don’t do in academia or the newspaper business.  He also mentioned in the nicest possible way, that he had once been a liberal or maybe a Marxist, and there was a time he had sported  a pony tail, but he got a haircut and unlike Samson he got over it.  We both laughed and  I agreed to travel all the way to NE Washington to his office at the Times.

The next day I wandered through the Times newsroom and after a number of wrong turns, I found my way to the executive offices.  Maybe I seemed a bit nervous, because  the secretary asked me to sit down and assured me that no one would do any proselytizing before or after my meetings with the Editor.  After about five minutes, the inner  office door opened and out popped a remarkably tall, stunning, smiling, 40ish, clearly not a Moonie, seemingly charming guy.   He grabbed my hand with one hand and gently grasped my arm with the other.  “Heidi said you’re great, so I don’t want you to escape.  Let’s go talk.”

It was my first of many meetings with Tony Snow, musician, speechwriter, White House Press Secretary and so much more.  We worked on his voice for about six or eight months.  Every meeting was a joy.  “At one point I confessed that he was so cute– no one would notice how he sounded.  But he still wanted to improve.  He learned to hear the way his voice sounded, and never tired of the way I sounded when I harangued him about any mistakes.  And he practiced all the exercises I gave him — there was progress every week.  He confessed that he never liked his voice and even if he never got into TV (which he felt was unlikely-talk about determined), he really wanted to feel confident about the way he sounded.  During the sessions we did vocal exercises that were loud and even silly.  He was neither shy nor self conscious.  He seemed to have fun with it and I had fun as well.  Eventually we talked politics and issues - couched as voice improvement 101, but we never had an angry or even confrontational encounter.  And we got to be friends.  In fact, when he went to the first Bush White House to write speeches he called and asked if I would do some voice and speech work with the President.  He said something like, “this is not about politics — your country needs you.”  I declined but I did agree to listen to some of the President’s speeches so I could tell Tony how to write for his voice pattern-not what, how.  For example, I noticed that when Bush took a breath he lost his place in the speech text and wandered into areas that were not on the paper.  “Write short sentences” I suggested… and he did and swore he would never tell anyone that I had helped him.

The lessons stopped but we remained friends.  Every once in a while, I would listen to him on the TV or radio and call to say “you need a tune up pal” and remind him to open his throat or do his relaxation exercises– not easy when you’re in a high powered stressful job.  We would talk about a range of issues, but he was so smart, it was hard to argue and win.  Neither of us liked losing, so we agreed to disagree about those things upon which we knew we would never agree.   There were times when he would meet an impressive young Democrat who needed a job or to make connections, and he would call me. And I reciprocated by introducing him to some of my remarkable young Republican students.  He was always willing to help a young person find their way in the maze of Washington politics or media.  He was always gracious and generous - no matter his personal success.

Tony Snow died yesterday after a multi-year year battle with colon cancer.  He had such an indomitable spirit that I think-we all thought, he would beat it.  There was no one-media or political or anyone who ever met him, who didn’t at least like him.  You simply couldn’t help it.  He was a patriot and a prince of a guy.   There will always be a special place in my heart for my wonderful Republican pal.  I am so very blessed to have known him and I, along with thousands of friends and acquaintances will miss him.  I am so teary and saddened by this enormous loss.

Politics is never without issues.  (That deserves a duh). If it were, it wouldn’t be very interesting.  You may think issues are things like the environment, education, health care and the war.  But alas, (I love old English speak-it’s so romantic), issues are much more than just making life better for billions of people.  Take the issue of where Obama should give his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.

After the Obama campaign made the announcement about moving the speech to Mile High Stadium, rather than the Convention Center, my immediate reaction was, “What for?  What a logistical nightmare! I get that they want to send a message of inclusive - that everyone in the universe is included, but I wouldn’t want to be the person who decides how the additional 40,000 tickets get  dispersed.  (Well, maybe I would but they didn’t ask me). I use 40,000 as a number because Madison Square Garden, the site of a number of political conventions holds about 35,000 people, and the stadium holds 75,000 - even I can do that math.  Anyway, do they give the tickets to loyal democrats, much desired independents, or young people who like stadium events.  Additionally, how do they move the 35,00 people, who are supposed to be at the convention, to the stadium.  I know you think they can take a cab or the Democratic party can provide about 800 buses, (because delegates and all VIP’s expect to be cared for), but it’s not without exorbitant expense or good chance of screw-up.  Maybe this is old think, after-all, John Kennedy did the same thing.  He reached out to the great unwashed (I mean unbamaized), rather than in any kind of sanitary way - that wouldn’t be nice.  Kennedy was ‘new think’ despite the fact that his campaign happened in the olden days.  There’s also the question of security.  As Susan Eisenhower said, Obama shows great courage just by walking out of his door in the morning. We all know there are lot’s of nuts out there who will try to make a statement about the possibility of the first Black President. It is just easier to secure a carefully credentialed smaller venue.

OK, so that’s what I thought-initially. But then I talked to my very wise friend Kerry and she reminded me that there are ‘political’ issues beyond logistics and security.  There is the question of the Clinton’s.  Since Bill and Hillary are going to speak at the Convention site, Obama needs to go elsewhere - or somewhere that takes him beyond small and select. A place that does not belong to the past.  Somewhere that makes yet another statement about change.

Last night Obama did a fundraiser in New York to retire the Clinton debt.  The only problem was that he forgot to do, as we say in politics-the ask.  He gave his speech, the music started and then his aides reminded him that he needed to say a thing or two about fundraising for Hillary. He stopped the music and said something like, oops “I forgot to mention Hillary. I might have had a debt if I hadn’t won.”  Do we think that was a problem?  It might have made the Obama supporters who resent having to pay Mark Penn, feel great.  But I don’t think the Hillary supporters who were there or listening,  wanted to be treated like an after thought.  I say, get over it! Put on your big girl panties and support the nominee.  I don’t think it was an intentional slight, rather just another example of what happens when the event (which at some point has a life of its own), moves forward without following the script.

There is no way to deny that this campaign is clearly an illustration of  generational differences.  Take the other controversy of the day - Jesse Jackson.  Isn’t  Jesse Jackson always a controversy?  Here’s what happened.  Jesse Jackson said that he thought as a consequence of Obama’s faith based speeches,  (where he said Black people had to take responsibility for themselves), he’d like to cut off Obama’s nuts-yes private parts.  Wow, there are those of us who think Jesse was a little harsh.  But what did we expect?  It’s not, as anyone who is not a doctor says, brain surgery.  Jesse wanted to be the President.  Jesse wants to be the most important Black guy.  Jesse Jackson has always tried to be the voice for his people.  He must be incredibly angry about the popularity and success of this young upstart, (who never got arrested, talks about faith and fatherhood) being in exactly the place Jesse has always tried to be.  And then, to make the awful even worse, Jesse’s son (a co-chair of the Obama campaign) admonished his father for the statements.  He even called his dad “Reverend”. Talk about humiliating.  It almost makes you feel sorry for the Reverend-almost is the operational word. Having been treated like trash by Jesse on more than one occasion-I can’t actually get to that ‘feeling really bad’ place.

Back to the question of political issues.  Are they more than making life better.  Are they simply decisions about tactics, logistics and rhetoric?  Yes.  Now, isn’t that a political answer.

If you missed my appearance on the MSNBC, Chris Matthews show, “Hardball” you missed an unusual occurrence.  I was intentionally funny.  Not that I didn’t make good political sense - which of course, I always do - but I decided to make sense with humor. I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I got lot’s of calls from fans saying that they wished I had been asked more questions, because I was so much more entertaining than the two other panelists.  Needless to say, I was thrilled and flattered to hear that I was good and relieved not to have been ridiculous.  There is a difference between funny and ridiculous.  Funny is crafting what you say to appeal to anyone who has a sense of humor and will listen-Pat Buchanan laughed and I’m not sure he knows what a “free baser” is.  (You’[ll have to figure out exactly what I said in order to be in the loop. We’re trying to get a DVD so we can put it on you tube, we’ll see - or you’ll see).  Anyway, being cleverly funny is an art. Being ridiculous is a mistake made by someone who doesn’t know that there is a difference.

You probably think I am going to say something terrible about George Bush, but I’m not.  He’s the past and I’m all about the future. (If only that were true and he was unable to do any more damage-but alas we still have about eight months before that happens.)  No I am not going to talk about  George Bush being ridiculous, I am going to blog about how campaign staff people make decisions.  What a transition. And I know that it sounds ridiculous. But the people who are making decisions as campaign staff now, now will  likely make decisions that impact on your life after the election.  So, I will share a political reality..  Everyone working on a campaign, with maybe the exception of the 4 or five most senior people, are afraid to make any decisions at all.  They are afraid to get yelled at.

Talk about ridiculous.  But I’m afraid it’s true. As a consequence, decision making is passed up the chain of command until it reaches a place where the person who makes the decision, can only get yelled at by the candidate, who doesn’t have the time to yell at anyone-except in a crowded auditorium when they’re saying “hey” to some local folks.  It’s why you see these earnest mostly youthful dedicated staffers on their blackberry’s 24/7.  They are asking someone else to make a decision - even simple decisions.  It is also why whenever a campaign request is made (say, by a media person) they say no.  Saying no is always easier than saying yes and maybe making a mistake and getting yelled at.  This is an issue not specific to one Party -in fact it is true in most campaigns even if you work your way past Presidential politics.

I’m not sure when this happened, but it is too bad for everyone for any number of reasons.  First, when you had to make your own decisions it tested your ability to make reasonable judgments, but more importantly you developed a sense of self worth which you could find in no other job. There were people in very senior positions who depended on you to help craft a message and a direction in a campaign, which was not only credible but unbeatable.  It didn’t matter whether you won or lost (that is not actually the truth, it mattered), but it was important for you to participate. Take the Advance people who traveled before the candidate-they were on the ground so they made not only logistical decisions, they made political decisions. It was their job to make decisions and they would no more have passed it up the chain, then they would have called the Candidate personally to get some inside dope.

Ok, so what does all this mean in terms of your life and the campaigns.  It means that all the campaign decisions are made by the people who surround each candidate. In most cases they are what activist women call, “smart ass white boys”-and that is democrats as well as republicans.  Yes, it is a bit disheartening that the same people are making the same decisions despite the outcry for change.  We knew it would happen with McCain and we expected more from Obama-but such is life.  It seems that all the senior women in each campaign still have to be accountable to some male. We have come so far and progressed so little-but I guess we need to be grateful that it appears we are in charge.

Anyway, it is a bit discouraging that the campaigns don’t actually invest any confidence in the people they have selected to be in charge. But it is even more disheartening that the people in charge have such limited confidence in the people they expect to run a country-a government-which will need not only new direction but a confidence in the ability to make decisions which will move us forward and in a direction that will help to make all our lives better. That’s not ridiculous, just not a reality– yet!

Here it is, the beginning of July and we are already in a general election. The candidates-who have yet to be nominated, are doing their best to hold the public attention - with only limited success (the 25 people who watch cable TV politics). The questions (despite all the noise) are, who can fix the economy develop an energy policy and get out of this stupid war-probably in that order. But instead of delivering a message or even better, a solution, John McCain is whining about Wes Clark calling him names and the Obama campaign is deciding if they need to throw Clark over the wall or under the bus. I suggest that if the latter is the choice, the bus should be the straight talk express-which we may be the first vehicle oxymoron in political history.

Here are more topics for conversation. Is Obama moving to the center with his discussions about faith and guns and maybe civil liberties. Will the predominantly Black southern states vote overwhelmingly for Obama and send the south into a tizzy. Will John McCain ever feign excitement about this race? Talk about Johnny one note-he’s clearly Johnny one tone and it is mono. I know you’ll be excited to find I have answers to these questions. Barack maybe moving to the center but who doesn’t and why in the world would he do it by attacking a George Bush policy in order to promote an idea that frightens everyone who is not a Christian. Faith based initiatives are too difficult to explain with words-you have to hold hands and feel them. And guns? Having sensible gun control legislation is like having sensible sex when you’re drunk. Neither works very well , yet alone are they controllable. Will the south vote democratic? Who knows. And that’s the fun of Presidential politics. No one knows. My friend Paul Tully used to say that if a guy gets up in the morning and has a fight with his wife-who is a committed Republican, he may vote for the Democrat just for spite. All the pollsters and pundits can predict what ever they want but there are many unknowns that are not measured in the equation. An important one being the youth vote. If young people actually vote, that is if they are not busy doing their hair or listening to music, that is, if they don’t find voting an inconvenience, then Obama will win in places the “experts” never thought possible. And perhaps even more surprising, Evangelicals are not necessarily going to vote for McCain. Because they have ongoing concern for a Jesus-like approach to the world, (ministering to the poor, the outcast, and the peacemakers as well a concern for the environment), they may prefer an Obama approach government.

When I watch McCain, I have the feeling that he has found himself in a place he only thought he wanted to be. His performances (and that’s what campaign appearances are) are as lackluster as his smile disingenuous. And now he has a campaign shake-up with which to deal. Campaign shake-up’s were always a nightmare. First of all you had to explain them and second, if you were the shook, you had to figure out what to do next - oh and yes, if you were relegated to “big picture” you had to find a new job without admitting you were leaving the old. There is nothing more humiliating in DC than being moved from campaign to “big picture.

The entire focus of the Bill Clinton Presidential campaign was “It’s the economy stupid”. Sure there were a few other issues discussed but he understood that the economy was the priority issue. Unfortunately, it’s hard to pick the priority in this election. “It’s the economy stupid”, for sure. But it’s also “the energy crisis– stupid and the war-even stupider.

And so on this July 4th holiday weekend we could have a conversation, about the Constitution and loss of civil liberties but all those words and issues are too long. So why not talk about middle names. Do we want a President with the name Hussein or would we opt for Sidney. I don’t know-it may be politically advantageous to go with Sidney but does it pass the guffaw test? I mean no one laughs at Hussein-maybe because they can’t say it, but who can keep a straight face over Sidney. Now there’s a campaign topic about which we can laugh and let’s admit it - Sidney It doesn’t pass the laugh test.