I remember people getting mad at Naderites in 2000 - why did they throw the election to Bush? And while I was a bit sympathetic - a few votes here and there could have made the difference - I also recognized that a few votes in a number of other areas made much more of a difference. As an example, Al Gore in the debates was asked what he would tell young people to make them vote for him. He launched into prescription benefits and social security. Which took me back to when I interviewed for my first real job, with the governent, a week before I turned 21. The guy who was showing me around (only mid-30's I think but feeling a bit older) started telling me about retirement benefits. Wow! I looked at him as if he was from Mars, though I guess I kept the green tint off my face and didn't let out any eep-oork-brrrups since I got the job and held it for a year before quitting from boredom.

But my point was that Gore had his chance on national TV direct-to-consumer, talk to this segment, and blew it. Sure, the media screwed him a thousand other times, but this was a slow ball mid plate and he fanned - no mention of internet, alternative fuels, world poverty, global warming, offshoring jobs - things that affect  and interest new grads. And I can imagine a good solid answer might have roused the campus bunch (who came out for Bush in droves) much more than the few people Nader got.

And most importantly - Nader's voters had the right to choose who they thought best. The candidates are the aspiring public servants. The voters are the customers. Say it slowly - "it's their choice". Don't like it? Say it slower: "Convince them". Yes, that's the American way. The customer is always right.

So now we've hit that funny point this year, with the election 5 months away and some of the Democrats don't seem thrilled with the current nominee. What to think? "It's their choice. Convince them." I have personal experience with 7-year-olds that tells me "You have to!" won't work. Trust me. It's easier to convince than to force, and people of voting age tend to be more stubborn than 7-year-olds when it comes down to it. They don't seem too convinced? Try harder! That's right, persistence, perseverance, spice up your reasons, relate them to the audience, to the customer, figure out their reluctance and reasons and core interests and relate them to your candidate. The ingredients are very simple even if the full answer or sales pitch might not be.

Imagine telling a potential customer that they have to buy a particular car, that they're obligated to. Fat chance. Consumers work on basic emotions, so you can use the "you'll be sorry" tack, but remember, getting their back up is counterproductive - "you'll be sorry, don't be stupid" works poorly as a combination. "Hey, you're really out there on the front edge with features, so I know this will interest you... Sure you can go with the other model, and it'll get you around, but this one's stylin' - check out the sun roof and the front trim.... Sorry, we don't carry the other model, it didn't sell so well, but you can check out something similar at our competitors' - I send a lot of retired folks their way though most of them come back. Theirs is okay, but ours is practically driving itself off the lots, it's This Year's Model."

A good interview with Mark Penn that gives some interesting perspectives on Obama's microtargeting campaign, debunking urban myths about his own affairs and attitudes, and gives his conclusion about the 3 biggest factors in what went wrong and could have gone right:

Mark Penn

Daily Howler follows up by reading between the lines, noting that someone who runs campaigns just can't blast away at the press - he needs them next campaign or for his other clients.

There have been so many wrong stories presented as the truth ("inevitable" came out of Ben Smith at Politico, not Mark Penn, for one), that Occam's Razor should be used at all times - anything that looks like complete unfettered nonsense might simply be nonsense. And while everybody gives interviews that tell their own side of things, Penn's version seems to ring true, while believing the opposite requires suspension of disbelief - such as he really didn't understand proportional representation in California? From a guy with how much campaign experience?

Anyway, read and enjoy. Or curse and kick the cat. But make sure you click Recommend - every time you do, a soul from purgatory springs and a lobbyist gets an ulcer from his bacon burger at the Palm.

Okay, class, take out a piece of paper.

The old but still-a-war-hero candidate representing the failed policies of the current administration has chosen the younger, sharper, more charismatic and female business woman Carly Fiorina as his running mate.

How does that affect your candidate's VP choice, strategy and chances in November, and actions pre-convention? How would you respond?

Since there are no "correct" answers, grades will be assigned based on the soundness of your reasoning - please be concise but explicitly state key assumptions and facts.

You may begin now. Please click Recommend to proceed.

A nice rundown on the Hillary campaign, with some interesting perspective on what it all means. Perhaps I'm fine with her heading back to the Senate after all, wondering what the next step is. Anyway, enjoy, and hush, don't let Obama fans know - they'll be upset it hardly mentions Barry at all.

Hillary's Fall and Rise

Perhaps it wasn't the association others came up with, but for me it was:

You get a line, I'll get a pole, honey, honey
You get a line, I'll get a pole, babe...

Yes, it seems Barack is subliminally calling for Little Annie Oakley to come help him - who knows how to handle a gun better, who's handled sniper fire?

All joking aside, this is shaping up to be a disaster. Don't have the young change-and-hope organizer start talking about guns against a POW vet - he's only going to trot out a cat to lick the milk off his ears.

But the real reason I'm writing is that the VP selection is a mess. We're going to have weeks of candidates dropping out, no interest, other obligations, etc. And then he'll choose Hillary (at best) or someone no one cares about (at worst). With a lukewarm feeling among everyone - oh, the least divisive or the least of all evils? What made Obama a superstar amongst Democrats leaves him limping now heading towards the general election, a wagon missing a wheel. There's no large enthusiasm, and it will get worse as people start thinking about details.

Right now, Obama could take charge, get a bounce, and get focused - "After the progress of our VP selection committee in vetting candidates, I've returned to the conclusion that I held originally, that Hillary will bring the most enthusiasm, the most experience, the most political skill to this ticket, and provide perspectives from our must underrepresented majority - women. I know some may hold some reservations from a hard fought primary, but the most important quality in putting forth change is perseverance and tenacity, and Hillary has shown that by fighting to a near draw. Having been a Chicago field worker getting out the vote, I know the hardest task is to get people involved, and Hillary's right - she has 18 million involved, 18 million invested in her ideas, and while we may disagree some on details, we're so close and the Republicans are so far away, that the only thing I can say is, "Welcome - climb on board, let's roll up our sleeves and work together".

Here's a historical perspective: On April 27, 1972 Novak reported in a column that an unnamed Democratic senator had talked to him about McGovern. "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," the Senator said. "Once middle America - Catholic middle America, in particular - finds this out, he’s dead."

A lot of people are ignoring the elections, but once they start paying attention, there's a real chance that McCain will get the benefit of the doubt over Obama.

In December, McCain's campaign was dead, he was broke, furiously behind in the polls, it was just a matter of time before he dropped out. And then he kicked everyone's ass. Either the party leaders and the pundits and the polls were wrong or the people held their nose and voted for John.

Funny, when Obama announced for President early 2007, he was polling just marginally ahead of McCain. Now after a year and a half of exposure and heavy campaigning, he's running just marginally ahead of McCain. That is extremely worrisome, especially since we now know how much the pollsters underestimated McCain.

There are less than 5 months to go before the election. The party can't even fund the convention at this point. But worse - the Republican nominee is staying in role, while the Democratic nominee is shifting his brand for the generals - once the "hope and change" candidate, now he's the tough-on-war, support Israel, anti-Revolutionary Guard and you-bring-a-knife-I'll-bring-a-gun candidate. You remember when Coke tried rolling out "New Coke" - how badly it bombed? Brand shifts are always dangerous. Hillary's been building her serious-on-security, serious-on-women's-issues brand for quite a long time. She got battered for the former in the primaries but she was always too focused on the generals. Right now we could use some serious brand management and a focused marketing campaign with a lot of fanfare and a lot of money and driving up the margins for an inevitable autumn tightening. Any doubts about Obama are balanced by Hillary, almost all constituents of the Democratic party are represented on the ticket, and we consolidate the message early rather than later. Democrats - we know how to unite and move forward. Climb aboard.