Well . . . you're right about one thing. Your love affair with Obama is really annoying. As good a speaker as Obama is, give me the technical know-how and the time, and I could string together something that would make him look utterly ridiculous.

It would involve a whole bunch of references to "hope" and "change" and more "change" and some "audacity of hope" and then some more about "hope" with a smattering of "change" thrown in for good measure . . . . all done in that good sing songy MLK style, but all the while saying nothing of substance.

Oh . . . wait. Maybe I could just take one of his speeches and run that.

Steve C.

Ah, the famous Crescenzo, objecting to some caricature humor! This video just keeps on giving!

Not objecting, young Murray. Not objecting at all . . . just questioning the drawing of the line between caricature humor and deeper lessons on leadership.

Nobody likes caricature humor more than me. I became a caricature of myself seven years ago, and have never been happier.

Steve C .

"This election so far offers a huge lesson in leadership communication" ???

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Adolf Hitler was a communicator's communicator. That guy had "leadership communication" skills up the ying-yang. So what?

We business communicators are word-dogs. We love language. We love seeing or hearing it used effectively. But knowing how to do that doesn't mean there's any truth--or any history--behind the words.

What has Obama DONE? In his short Senate stint, what has he voted for? EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS CLINTON HAS VOTED FOR. There is not a teaspoonful of difference between the two of them. Their voting records show that they'll do almost identical things in the Oval Office.

I join you in enjoying Obama's communication skills, but they're not a SUBSTANTIVE way to differentiate between the two candidates.

I just want a president who will make me get off my ass and do something I've never done before--like do a better job at recycling, or volunteer more. And what I like about Obama, is that he does that for me soley through his leadership communication skills. Sad and shallow? I don't care what people think. I just want someone in the White House who can restore the importance of delivering a great speech from time to time. And of all the candidates (and in recent history), he's head and shoulders above the rest.

Maybe it all really boils down to eye appeal. Look at Alaska's governor--I figured from the day she filed that she'd win for sheer f***ability factor, and sure enough. And now we get her Nana Mouskouri image every single day in the news. She's a LOT easier to look at than Frank the Bank was, and so far has been less harmful. Perhaps Mr. Obama would be the best choice for sheer visual relief.

All right, allow me to teach the "leader is a dealer in hope" lesson as I first learned it, firsthand, having nothing to do with politics, almost a decade ago.

I was working in an employee communication consultancy. It had two principals.

One was this really serious dude who talked to prospective clients in grave detail about the discipline of communication measurement, how measurement could go wrong, how measurement should be done right.

The other was this really funny, sunny, bright guy who talked to them about how the audit would transform the communication department and how much more traction, with management and employees the department could have at the end.

They were principals of the same firm. They were selling the SAME PROJECTS. They were going to get the same results.

Which one do you think was the one you'd say got the most business?

A candidate who can't make the electorate feel some kind of hope--no matter how legitimate his or her credentials--is at a disadvantage to a candidate who can.

That's all I'm saying.

A friend of mine has a position on this that is starting to make some sense to me. Obama hasn't been in the Senate as long as Clinton and McCain, therefore he isn't the entrenched problem that they are. They're all saying they will fix Washington but aren't C and McC part of the group/organization that broke it in the first place?

Maybe - just maybe - Obama can make a difference because he hasn't doesn't know that he can't. If we elected a member of the entrenched establishment, won't we just get more of the same?

Colleen: the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" model of governing? Do we employ this kind of thinking with any other decisions we make? Do we intentionally choose surgeons or stockbrokers or firefighters with the LEAST experience?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in love with any candidate in any party. I'm just saying, let's choose based on sensible criteria.

And David, I don't doubt that dealers in hope energize more people than somber dudes. It's just...hope in WHAT? Change in WHAT? They never finish their sentences. It's so often all smoke and mirrors, and many of us don't catch on until it's too late.

Jane: You don't like McCain's experience, but I'm not allowed to like Obama because you don't like his experience either and so he might as well be Hitler?

You ask what he has done: Here's what he has done, to impress this urban liberal goof: He came out of Harvard after being a star student and the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and he organized for a number of years in the worst neighborhoods in this city.

In terms of courage, idealism and sacrifice, that is so far beyond anything anybody I know has done that I must say, I admire him.

I've been watching him like a hawk ever since his DNC speech in 2004. I think he's intelligent, wise, funny, warm, human and, for a political candidate, incredibly psychologically healthy.

I like the way he tells his own life story, I like the way he interacts with other people.

I like the way he handles himself and as people used to say, "Durn it, I just like the way he talks."

And I like his basic platform, which despite his high-flown rhetoric, is every bit as detailed as those of Hillary Clinton.

For a liberal guy like me, when you look at Obama, what's not to like?

But Jane, you're forgetting that for the most part, the President doesn't DO a lot. It's the members of Congress that do the things and make the decisions that most affect our lives. What we need is a president that can work with Congress to get them to further his programs and plans. He (or she) can't change much without Congress getting on board and making it happen.

We really should be examining our candidates for Senate and House seats as closely and a passionately as we discuss and scrutinize the Presidential candidates. They are the ones who will make or break whomever is president.

Colleen: Amen and amen.

David: You KNOW I didn't say Obama "might as well be Hitler." I said, "Let's look at what he's done instead of how he talks about it." I like your last response--detailing what you've seen him do--much better than your ravings about what a great communicator he is.

When is Obama supposed to talk tactics?

Americans are primarily exposed to Obama during his victory or concession speeches. Is he supposed to talk tactics during a pep talk? Imagine a football coach at half-time talking to the whole team. They're winning and he wants to keep it that way.

"Good job fellas. Now, on the first drive we're going to handoff to Jonesy while Fitzsimmons pulls to the left and we'll drive through that hole. Then we'll run an XY pattern so the wide receivers ... Hey! Defense! Are you paying attention?"

There's a time and place for that conversation, but not during a pep talk--particularly one that should engage all the listeners.

So why do we hold Obama responsible when he employs the same technique? Shoud he discuss the nitty gritty specifics of his prescription drug plan during a nationally televised victory speech? It would bore people; it would bore you to tears.

Good point, Michael.

And Colleen:

"We really should be examining our candidates for Senate and House seats as closely and a passionately as we discuss and scrutinize the Presidential candidates. They are the ones who will make or break whomever is president."

Not to mention mayors, city council and precinct captains, who can do lots of funny things while we're busy watching this symbolic horse race.

David

Michael, I'm not interested in the candidates' tactics at this point--I'm interested in their philosophy of governance: the stuff that will not change with the wind. The big picture, but conveyed precisely, not with feel-good stuff. What's their philosophy of redistribution of wealth? Immigration? National defense? Health care? Israel? Energy?