Over the last two years, blog comments have emerged as an important topic among corporate communicators. The thought of them often deters executives from signing off on an employee blog, internal or external, for fear someone will trash the company or insult fellow employees (ahem, lawsuit).

One failsafe is the elimination of anonymous comments; forcing readers to sign-in and attach their names to comments. The reasoning is that under the “anonymous” guise someone will leave nasty, unconstructive comments. Identifying yourself, the argument goes, will prevent such comments—and perhaps prevent real juicy comments.

Right now on Ragan.com there anonymous comment debate is playing out, although no one is actually talking about it directly. Several articles Ragan has published on the communications aspect of both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions have drawn hundreds of comments.

Most comments are constructive, others not to so much. The majority of the commentators, constructive or not, identify themselves as “anonymous” or else with a first name, nickname or initials. And most of these comments are well-written, thoughtful, mini-articles—if sometimes off topic.

So do anonymous comments advance the conversation, or dampen it?

I think they do; in general people are more candid and therefore more willing to share a workplace story without fear of ramification. The level of discourse is heightened.

That said, there’s some pretty nasty commentary in between, but hey, that’s reality. Would Ragan prevent the angry and deconstructive comments if it made readers identify themselves? It might lessen them, but take a look at the comments to the previous PR Junkie post; among the harshest came from a reader who gave his first and last name.

Of course, the very thought of this kind of free-flowing conversation might scare the pants, or skirts, off your bosses. If that’s the case, check out a free giveaway on this topic—grant it you have to take a five question poll in order to download it—that Ragan and the Toronto-based company PollStream created.

The download is an overview of both the pros and cons of allowing anonymous comments; good stuff to include in a pitch for an employee blog.

The poll is about anonymous comments. So far, it’s drawn over 500 respondents—the most ever for a Ragan/PollStream poll. Find the poll on Ragan.com (it’s called POLL-arized), or on the homepage of MyRagan.

In what will be considered either an impressive PR coupe or else embarrassing political blunder, Barack Obama will appear on The O’Reilly Factor to give a “pre-rebuttal” of John McCain’s speech to the Republican National Convention. It will air after the speech is given.

For those unfamiliar with the show, it is hosted by Bill O’Reilly, a conservative blow hard, who blows harder than nearly any other pundit on TV (although Keith Olbermann is getting close). The show is really one giant circus of idiocy brought to you by the good people at FOX.

Obama had previously taped the interview (his first) with host Bill O’Reilly.

Interestingly enough, reports surfaced this week that Obama had met with FOX’s owner Rupert Murdoch to discuss the network’s unbalanced coverage of the candidate. Perhaps the result of that meeting is this interview.

On paper this interview looks like a terrific PR move: respond to what will no doubt be strong attacks by your opponent on the very show that’s home to many of those attacks. Obama avoids “preaching to the choir” by skipping his home court, which is certainly the left-leaning MSNBC, for the much more conservative O’Reilly Factor. Not to mention The O’Reilly Factor is among the most popular cable news programs.

Again, good move on paper, but what, exactly, is the Obama campaign smoking? (Because, in this case, I don’t want any.) Unless his communicators have final cut privileges, which I’m certain they do not, how can they be assured the interview won’t negatively portray the candidate at such a crucial moment?

There’s much talk of the “bounce” in polls that convention speeches create. It looks like Obama’s speech last week has given him a slightly larger edge over McCain (although vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s speech might have something to say about that). Obama might smother McCain’s bounce by appearing on O’Reilly—or intensify it.

Either way, O’Reilly will draw viewers he’s certainly never had in the past—even me, if the Obama people share whatever they’re on.

President Bush delivered an effective, yet ultimately unremarkable speech at Tuesday’s Republican National Convention—and that was probably how McCain wanted it.

The Obama campaign is firing on all pistons, insisting that a John McCain presidency will be nothing more than a third Bush term. To the Obama people this seems a safe bet since the president has hovered at near-record low approval ratings.

So the question Tuesday night was how the Republicans would present Bush to the convention and, indeed, to the people watching from home. The answer was a speech that praises McCain and recognizes his reluctance to badger the White House on certain issues.

President Bush, speaking via satellite from the White House (he was there handling the Hurricane Gustav response), gave a roughly eight minute speech where he insisted McCain was ready to lead the country.

However, he only once used the word “experience,” which was a steady drumbeat of the McCain campaign until the relatively inexperienced Sarah Palin joined the ticket.

“When the debates have ended, and all the ads have run, and it is time to vote, Americans will look closely at the judgment, the experience, and the policies of the candidates—and they will cast their ballots for the McCain-Palin ticket,” Bush said late in the speech.

The president also highlighted McCain’s maverick streak, a point with tinges of irony considering Bush hammered McCain for that very trait back in 2000.

“John is an independent man, who thinks for himself. He’s not afraid to tell you when he disagrees—believe me, I know,” the president said with a grin.

Bush also illustrated that McCain, aside from other senators (even some in the convention hall that night) supported “the surge” in Iraq, a move that’s reduced violence in Baghdad. In doing so, Bush highlighted the differences between McCain and Obama on the war in Iraq.

It’s no surprise that Bush was at his best when talking tough, explaining McCain’s tough stance on terrorism and his willingness to continue an offensive foreign policy. In the same vein, the president’s best turn of phrase came when talking up McCain’s POW experiences in Vietnam.

“If the Hanoi Hilton could not break McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will,” he said.

The speech also had a moment of humor when Bush said, referencing his wife who preceded and followed him, that convention delegates had “traded up” with Laura Bush at the podium and not him.

Seems the McCain campaign traded up as well; the president’s relatively short speech helped shore up party loyalists without giving the Obama campaign fodder for attack ads.

Talk about effective communications.

As Hurricane Gustav hovered at category 4 strength preparing to hit America’s Gulf Coast early this week, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin told residents: “You need to be scared; you need to get your butts out of New Orleans now.”

He also called Gustav “the mother of all storms.”

After receiving flack in 2005 for waiting too long to issue a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans as Hurricane Katrina approached, the mayor is obviously being as direct as possible.

Seems it worked. Media outlets reported that most of the city's residents evacuated.

Meanwhile, Corporate Social Responsibility News said local businesses in New Orleans are helping the city prepare for Gustav. Also, this weekend, Forbes magazine reported on Cellular South, a mobile phone carrier, that’s readying its employees for a possible crisis.

While the story focuses heavily on Cellular South’s steps to protect phone service, it touches upon the importance of internal crisis communications.

“The wireless carrier's 1,000-member workforce along with the company's network resources are now on ‘high alert,’” Forbes reported. “Cellular South has also activated its Emergency Response Plan, which guides the deployment of company resources and personnel during a crisis.”

Ever seen the 2002 movie Minority Report?

Characters in this sci-fi flick are barraged with virtual display ads as they walk through public places. Six years ago this concept was crazy, like hovering skateboards; seems we’re now a few years away from it actually happening.

Companies will begin targeting you with personalized ads on digital screens, reports The Wall Street Journal. Marketers are tailoring these ads based on your previous purchases and soon based on your appearance. WSJ said Dunkin Donuts is among the first to try the concept.

Forget the creepy, sci-fi aspect of these ads and instead consider the potential embarrassment. One morning you have a bear claw craving. You dash away from the office, buy four and greedily gobble them in a bathroom stall.

Months later you’re at Dunkin’ Donuts with an attractive co-worker and standing before a digital screen an ad appears for six packs of bear claws.

“Ha, ha, that’s weird,” you mumble. “Why would I want six bear claws?” Then, as your stomach rumbles, you order a glass of water.

Now imagine this scenario. You just gobbled six bear claws and your self-esteem is fluttering. Out for a stroll you pass a digital display that creates personalized ads based on your appearance. What pops up? Dog food.

“So your marketers think I look like a dog?” You complain.

“No, no,” a company spokesman says. “You look like a dog owner.”

“Why do I look like a dog owner?” You reply. “Because you think I’m needy?”

I like arugula. It’s my favorite leafy green. A few slices of tomato with balsamic dribbled over it, maybe a sprinkle of pepper, and mmm mmm good.

So why won’t John McCain leave arugula alone?

What did this plant ever do to him, beside tickle Barack Obama’s taste buds? Take this recent example of arugula bashing from McCain staffer Brian Rogers.

“Does a guy [Obama] who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

Mr. Rogers, I worry about the price of arugula. What's wrong with that?

So, on behalf of arugula—not Obama—let me do a little pro bono PR work for the brow beaten plant. This isn't about politics; this is about my favorite leafy green getting a bum rap.

Arugula is no elitist; it is a survivor. Although native to Mediterranean areas, the plant is more akin to hard scrabble, pull yourself up by the bootstraps American ideals than almost any other vegetable—potato included.

After more than two thousand years of cultivation, arugula remains a difficult plant to domesticate. That’s right brother, don’t tread on me. But if you do tread on me—often the case with arugula since it grows on dry disturbed ground—there’s little need to worry because this plant is tough.

Also, the average person can easily grow arugula in a backyard garden making it the people’s green plant. However, getting it to seed, and therefore domesticate, is tricky; that means arugula is a plant of the people, but no socialist. It is an individualist.

So to hell with iceberg lettuce. Given all arugula's American traits, it might as well be red, white and blue. In fact, I propose we rename arugula “Patriot Leaves.”

Poor Vanity Fair editorial assistant Bill Bradley. He had to make 10,000 friends by August 5 or he was out of a job.

The go-getter with black-rimmed glasses worked from his gray cubicle as the young mastermind behind a PR campaign to guilt people into joining Vanity Fair’s Facebook page.

Bill tried everything. He even pleaded with sweaty tourists and onlookers in New York’s Times Square for help. Covering his front and back with a sandwich ad board of the latest issue of Vanity Fair with Angelina Jolie, Bill tried to make new friends.

Bill went with the free walking ad campaign as compared to what would be $125,000 to run an ad for eight minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, on the jumbo screen in Times Square. (He did check into it but was in no position to buy.)

But on August 6, the party was over. His editor called him into his office and gave him the boot.

The editor explained he was fired since he didn't make 10,000 fans on Facebook.

Bill pleaded with him, asked for another week but his boss wasn't budging.

Next thing you know, two heavy-set men dressed in dark suits appeared and dragged Bill out of the office.

See what happens next here:

Enough about China and its public relations. From Newsweek to the Baltimore Sun, China’s PR for the Olympics has been one hot news topic.

There are reporters seemingly obsessed with China’s public relations campaign. The ones covering it must feel awfully proud; they’ve revealed Red China’s insidious PR effort.

Oh the naivety. China and its PR firm of record, Hill & Knowlton, have pulled off the ultimate shell game. These reporters and editors are so interested in covering the nation’s PR that they are stealing attention from the issues that seem to infuriate them so much: China’s human rights abuses, pollution, Olympic ruses.

If you are China, coverage of your public relations campaign is better than images of beaten monks and smoggy skylines. Plus, the Beijing Olympics are as much about Michael Phelps as they are about China’s emergence as a modern nation—and modern nations have PR representation.

So if China and Hill & Knowlton are the clever grifters enticing lost tourists to play the shell game, then the media are the lost tourists certain they have the scheme figured out. And we all know how that turns out—the tourists make everyone dumber, or was that the media?

I hate it when I get lost in my own metaphors.

Olive Garden has a problem worse than its food*—Hugh Hefner’s girlfriend loves the place. Loves, loves, loves it. And that, The Wall Street Journal reports, makes execs at Olive Garden’s parent company and ad agency uncomfortable.

“I don’t feel comfortable talking about this … because it is a complicated issue for the brand,” Michele Kay, executive vice president of WPP Group’s Grey advertising firm, told WSJ. WPP oversees Olive Garden’s ads.

Poor Kendra Wilkinson, Hefner's girlfriend, the beautiful, busty, blue-eyed blonde—and Playboy model—who just wants to show her love for Olive Garden’s artichoke dip, salads and, of course, breadsticks.

Items she calls her “soul food,” WSJ reported.

(I’m going to let that comment hang … momentarily … so you can really soak it in.)

Wilkinson is co-star of the reality show, “The Girls Next Door,” which is about Hefner’s girlfriends. On the show, Wilkinson not only expresses her love for the restaurant but also sent a call to Olive Garden waitresses: Who’s the hottest? The winner gets a spread in Playboy magazine.

That’s a huge celebrity endorsement—for free! I imagine the company behind Steven Seagal’s Lightning Drink pays the actor (for lack of a better word) a fortune for his name. Olive Garden could save a bundle on its B-list, sorry, D-list celebrity endorsements.**

Problem is Olive Garden goes for that family-friendly atmosphere (“When you’re here, you’re family”). Imagine how uncomfortable dad and teenage son will be when the centerfold from that Playboy they unknowingly share is their waitress.

So what is the restaurant chain doing? Not talking about it, WSJ said. They want to maintain the family-friendly vibe without offending Wilkinson.

Apparently this is a problem for brands: what do you do when you don’t want the endorsement? Some political candidates, the biggest brand names of all, have balked at celebrity endorsements.

For instance, Hillary Clinton undoubtedly appreciated OJ Simpson’s primary vote, although she probably wished he’d kept that to himself. When MTV reality star Heidi Montag endorsed John McCain, the candidate probably cringed given his Obama attack ad comparing his Democratic rival to celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears—oh wait, no, McCain has actually welcomed the Montag endorsement. Never mind.

In an interview with WSJ, Pete Blackshaw, of Nielson Online Strategic Services, called these unsolicited endorsements the “double-edged sword of brand advocacy” insisting such a thing is difficult to manage.

While WSJ offers no true solution to this conundrum, it illustrates what Starbucks does: Don’t say anything, good or bad. Whether it’s the Dalai Lama or Vladimir Putin clutching a venti latte and appearing on magazine covers, the company’s policy is to stay mum.

And that, too, is Olive Garden’s approach, where “when you’re here, you’re like the disgraced relative no one wants to talk to.”

*I have no idea if Olive Garden food is good or bad for you and today I’d probably enjoy a meal from the restaurant; however, my college roommate served at the restaurant and after every shift brought home leftover bread sticks. I ate my weight in those delicious treats and one night grew violently ill—no doubt from my own lack of self-restraint—which soiled future experiences at the eatery.

**Just for fun, I searched both Wilkinson and Seagal on MySpace and learned Wilkinson has a whopping 728,646 MySpace friends, while Steven Seagal registers only 8,269 friends. (As a point of reference, Barack Obama has 448,400 MySpace friends.)

The Free Download on MyRagan this week explains why communicators should teach their executives to say, “I don’t know.” But what happens when communicators don’t understand the importance of these magic words?

They do gymnastics with the truth.

Take this recent example. On Aug. 1, news reports said comedian and actor Bernie Mac had been hospitalized for pneumonia. Mac’s publicist, Danica Smith, said the comedian was “responding well to treatments and should be released soon.”

Got it; he’s hospitalized, doing fine, we’ll see him soon.

Two days later, Aug. 3, sources told Chicago newspapers Mac was in “very, very critical condition.” His condition had worsened, the media reported. And Smith’s reaction to the development?

“Absolutely untrue,” she said, calling the reports “horrible rumors” and insisting “nothing has changed.”

Mac passed away Sunday, Aug. 10, of complications due to pneumonia.

Mac and his family deserved privacy and discretion during his final days—no doubt about that, but why did Smith have to fib? Why not tell reporters, “I don’t know the exact extent of Mac’s condition,” or simply, “I can’t comment on those reports.”

Danica Smith is a high-powered Los Angeles-based publicist so maybe she knows better than me—I don’t know.