17 posts tagged “campaign”

This is no surprise given the promotions that Sen. Obama has been getting in the media: ‘Obama elicits more excitement than McCain’, according to USA Today.
   I want to be the voice of reason but 21 years in communications tell me that this is important. If your brand, personal or organizational, elicits excitement among its constituents, then you have a greater chance of mobilizing those people when you need them.
   Even when it comes to politics, to get messages across to voters, one has to resort to the tried and trusted techniques of branding and marketing.
   There are few in the present generations who will, as many bloggers do, investigate someone’s voting record or dig deeply into their histories. It would be nice to say that presidents are not elected based on how much excitement they can generate. Or that we should place greater emphasis on other qualities like honour and sincerity.
   While some might point to exceptions, such as the Tory victory in the UK of 1992, I beg to differ. That campaign was hard fought by the Conservatives and depended on party unity—which was sorely lacking in 1997 when Tony Blair was elected. The National victory in New Zealand of 1990 was a result of the cry for change and the belief that Labour was leaderless.
   And the cry for change is such a powerful message in politics, because politicians understand our nature: even the vaguest change is better than the strongest, best defined policies if a party has been in power for too long.
   Labour in the UK in 1997, National in New Zealand in 1990, Labour in New Zealand in 1999, Clinton in 1992—all these are examples of that message. And that, too, “excites”.
   Sen. McCain should not pursue an excitement route himself, but he should capitalize on mistakes that the Obama campaign is making with greater regularity. The New Yorker gaffe—where Sen. Obama felt the need to comment rather than appear presidential and above satire—was an opportunity missed. Meanwhile, I wonder if people appreciate the maverick, go-it-alone style of John McCain, which plays well in the Senate, but could be symptomatic of future Cabinet divisiveness under his administration.
   A winner is by no means clear, and a week remains a long time in politics. Months, as Sen. Clinton will attest as she went from dead cert to second-best, are an eternity.

I thought this was awesome news in that the photographer, Giuliano Bekor, shot regularly for Lucire. From the Lucire ‘Insider’ section.

Giuliano Bekor, whose credits include numerous Lucire shoots, photographed Hayden Panettiere for her 2008 Candie’s print campaign.

Hayden Panettiere will star in Candie’s back to school 2008 television, print and online advertising campaign, according to the company. Hayden, who is known as an award-winning actress, activist and star of NBC’s hit television series Heroes can now add recording artist to her résumé.
   Following last year’s marketing campaign with Grammy-award winning artist Fergie, the new fall TV commercial will be a direct lift from Panettiere’s first music video, ‘Wake Up Call’, which was styled using Candie’s apparel, footwear and accessories.
   This is Panettiere’s second season with the brand.
   To coincide with TV, a print campaign will feature Panettiere in a variety of sexy and sweet vignettes as she playfully poses with a piano, behind a beaded curtain and in a club-like setting among others. The ‘Wake Up Call’ video and the Candie’s commercial were shot in Los Angeles by famed music video director Chris Applebaum and the print campaign was shot by fashion photographer Giuliano Bekor, whose credits include Lucire, and created by the Iconix in-house marketing team.
   Fans can listen to ‘Wake Up Call’ exclusively at www.candies.com and www.kohls.com/inspire (streaming only) beginning today. The single will be available for download on iTunes beginning August 5. The single is being released by Hollywood Records.

It’s been interesting watching the MSM dissect the Clinton campaign with a whole range of experts saying why she will not be the Democratic Party nominee for the presidency. I would venture to say these are the same experts predicting a Hillary Clinton win a year ago.
   It’s that which I have found remarkable today as Sen. Barack Obama becomes the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, rather than the very strong likelihood that Sen. Obama has won.
   For months, the mainstream media have been promoting Sen. Obama heavily. One reason is that he is newsworthy to the left. More often than not, his race is used as the reason behind that promotion. In essence, most New Zealanders, and I would say most non-Americans who watched the news from the US, were left in little doubt that he would take the Democratic Party contest.
   Image sells in American politics, and probably politics in many western countries. George W. Bush got people used to thinking about a Republican president in 2000 by forming his cabinet while lawyers battled Florida. When he did win, only diehard Democrats tried to tell the American people they had been hoodwinked. Everyone else awaited the January 20, 2001 swearing-in. Go back a few years and Tony Blair, too, gave an inevitable image of a Labour victory in 1997.
   This time, Sen. Obama has done the same, and it has been a well thought-out campaign: his book, writing from a humanist perspective and admitting any faults that his rivals were likely to dig up; a consistent branding scheme (the use of the Gotham typeface, for example); and vagueness (to give his opponents less of a target).
   On some of these aspects, Sen. Obama has fielded a very different campaign. Only vagueness seems to be the common thread with other winners. A pre-campaign book was clever as well as admitting to things no other potential presidential nominee would, such as his having tried cocaine.
   In fact, when he began getting specific after a challenge by Sen. Clinton, he actually lost traction.
   I do not pretend to like all of Sen. Obama’s policies if I were to look at his voting record in the Senate, any more than I find myself in accord with Sens. Clinton and McCain.
   As a minority, I am glad that a racial barrier has been broken in American politics. Even though Sen. Obama is biracial, he has been branded an African–American through his father’s homeland, showing just how people are habitual pigeonholers. If by the quirk of genetics he had his mother’s skin colour, would his race have become such an issue?
   That one matter shows how far his campaign has come, in a country that would not have fathomed a “black” president other than in fiction, in the form of Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert.
   We can accept God being played by Morgan Freeman, but a black president?
   While having huge African–American support, I totally understand the campaign Sen. Obama ran in terms of race: he plain didn’t mention it.
   I wouldn’t.
   Any member of any minority in the world, whether that minority is black, yellow, brown or white, who has been brought up on the idea of hard work and dignity, would not make race an issue—with perhaps the exception of others making race an issue for him or her.
   I think that earned Sen. Obama brownie points among many of the United States’ immigrants and people descended relatively recently from immigrants.
   It finally proves so many of those lessons from our parents right: that if you work hard, you can become a leader.
   Once upon a time, parents said that but knew that it would take a miracle for a minority to get there, whether we are talking about the US or New Zealand.
   Barack Obama is proof not only of his own abilities, but he represents the hope that the presidency is no longer governed by skin colour, but by sheer hard work. That speaks to a large part of the electorate, including Caucasian–Americans.
   In some ways this has allowed his policies to be overlooked, which is actually unhealthy for democracy. Americans need to be voting on who can bring them true honour and meaning. But just as Sen. Obama began attacking Sen. John McCain’s policies as he presumed himself the Democratic nominee, it will be up to Sen. McCain to reveal his opponent’s policy shortcomings.
   However, it was not always in the bag.
   Those same MSM experts seem to forget that Sen. Clinton, using a campaign that broke the rules on branding (a confused message and confused visual communications) got so close to Sen. Obama that it actually was a miracle she survived and gained as many votes as she did. Writing in a country that has had two successive female prime ministers and, at one point, women in the Governor-General’s and Chief Justice’s role as well, the gender difference means far less to me. What I saw was a clumsy campaign that had more traction than logic would allow me to admit.
   Sen. Clinton’s progress was nothing short of amazing considering she did not play from the rulebook, and we brand consultants will have to at least acknowledge her case and say: anomalies exist in marketing strategy.
   The question is now whether there is a Clinton vice-presidency, but Obama aides are dead set against it. Equally, Clinton aides would not want their senator cosying up with Sen. Obama.
   If the Clinton image of “will say and do anything for the top job” is accurate, and as Sen. Clinton herself mentioned the possibility of assassination, I would not consider the senator from New York to be a vice-presidential nominee if I were Barack Obama. I might get “Arkancided” in the hope of her succession.
   But right now, Sen. Obama has a Democratic Party to reunite and invigorate, something that Sen. McCain may have difficulty doing for an uninspired GOP. Sen. Obama has media visibility on his side, reaching internal as well as external audiences.

[Cross-posted] This has been official for a while (or so I think—not that I ever heard what the Electoral Commission thought, but I did see it on its website). However, I wanted the party to approve the news first before sharing it with you all. The following is the overseas release which was rewritten from the one sent to domestic newsmedia. One that includes a mention of the Bush–Cheney campaign of 2004 was sent to US media.

JY&A Consulting revamps logo for New Zealand’s Alliance Party

Wellington, May 9 (JY&A Media) New Zealand political party, the Alliance, is looking more modern and relevant, thanks to its new logo by JY&A Consulting (http://jya.net/consulting).
   Devised by JY&A Consulting’s Jack Yan, the new logo signifies a new beginning for the democratic socialist political party.
   Mr Yan says that he has been a keen observer of general elections in the UK, US and New Zealand since the 1980s and that played a part in his team’s design.
   He says the Conservatives in 1983, Labour in the UK in 1997 and 2002 and Labour in New Zealand in 1999 and 2003 had certain commonalties in their campaigns, centring around typography.
   He also said that in those years, the party’s name was important, not the symbol—hence the traditional Labour rose was not present on that party’s election materials in 1997 and 2002.
   By abandoning the old A symbol of the Alliance and concentrating on the word, Mr Yan says that the party looks more professional and ready.
   The Alliance has contested every General Election in New Zealand since 1993. However, due to party changes it is trying to rebuild itself for the country’s General Election later this year.
   ‘We have two major parties in New Zealand that vote pretty much the same on all issues,’ says Mr Yan, ‘and minor parties that get ignored because of a lack of visibility. I wanted to change that. Why should minor parties be laboured with second-rate brands?’
   The logo is based around the Frutiger typeface and its lettering is predominantly in red, with a red dot over the i in Alliance to signify its environmental awareness.
   He says the letter i also shows the humanizing aspect of the party.
   ‘As a piece of design I think it looks more cohesive than the committee-led logos of National and Labour,’ he says, criticizing the major two parties in New Zealand.
   ‘I was given a lot of freedom, which is a good sign of how the party leadership handles matters. It clearly believes in trusting the right people.’
   As well as heading JY&A Consulting’s parent, Jack Yan & Associates, Mr Yan co-wrote Beyond Branding in 2003 and is a director of the Medinge Group, a branding think-tank based in Sweden.
   In October 2007 he was a keynote speaker for the Alliance Party at its annual conference.

The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
   He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
   Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
   In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
   While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
   I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
   The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
   I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
   I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
   This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
   The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
   In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
   They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
   They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
   Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
   Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
   If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
   Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
   This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.

Before I begin, I should note that this story does not have a response from the Clintons directly, but it makes very disturbing viewing. As Peter Paul says in the first part, the case against the Clintons is proceeding, dealing with a massive election fraud, but there is nothing in the media about it. At the end of Part One, Mr Paul shows a video that demonstrates Mrs Clinton was in full knowledge of the campaign contributions that were raised for her by him and his organization.
   Equal Justice Foundation of America, which presents the documentary, calls the incident ‘most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there.’ One commentator believes that Sen. Clinton has committed a felony punishable by five years’ jail time.
   Let us say this is not beyond the realm of imagination and needs to be considered fairly.

I see Sen. Clinton has resorted to even more attacks on Sen. Obama, all of which smack of desperation and come through to me 7,000-plus miles away as tiresome. God only knows what the American people have to put up with on a far more frequent basis, especially if it is in my consciousness in a foreign country.
   The Clinton camp has not denied sending out a picture of Sen. Obama on one of his many visits back to Kenya, wearing traditional elder garb. Its intention: to show how “foreign” Sen. Obama is. More to the point, to show how “un-American” he is. Wear traditional costume? You are not wholesome enough to be American, in that Ward and June Cleaver way.
   You see, there is a theory that the Clinton side must have in that it is considered culturally sensitive for a white American to adopt his or her host’s costumes, but it is considered odd for a black American to do the same.
   Despite the large African-descended community in the United States, traditional African costume has not entered the general consciousness of the country. Sen. Obama, wearing the costume of his father’s homeland, looks very different to the well suited figure that Americans have seen during the campaign. He has tried to be race-neutral for the most part, rightly resisting to use that aspect in a campaign that is heated enough.
   The Clinton campaign is hoping this photo will be the undoing of Obama in Ohio and Texas. I do not think so. Americans are just too darned smart for this to work.
   There is nothing wrong with the image but for the fact that it may have come from the Clinton campaign, released with an obvious belief that it is scandalous.
   It shouldn’t be, of course, but Clinton has now made this campaign about race—or her own racism. (I suppose it might not be as bad as showing your tax liabilities.)
   Nevertheless, having a black campaign manager is not going to make her look whiter than white on this issue, if you will pardon the one attempt at humour in this post.
   These attacks have fallen flat before. Anti-Obama types and anti-Islamists stressed that his middle name is Hussein. That proved ineffective for numerous reasons. Earlier in the year, in stressing her credentials, Clinton said that it took a president (LBJ) to make the Civil Rights’ Movement effective—which was seen by many as undermining the work of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. For me, that brought up the 2004 incident when Clinton joked that Mahatma Gandhi was someone who pumped gas for a living in St Louis, Mo.
   While I tried to give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt on her incidents, I am not so sure about the newest—and it wasn’t helped by the Clinton campaign’s reactions. Skemono, a fellow blogger, expresses it better than I could, quoting campaign manager Michelle Williams. I imagine that Skemono is better versed on the topic, being inside the US.
   Put these incidents together and it paints a sorry picture of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s élitism and what she regards as “American”. Obviously Indians need not apply, even the great man Gandhi. I imagine in her view blacks need the white hand to help, the freedom of the Civil War given to them benevolently, and civil rights by President Lyndon Johnson.
   Even if Sen. Clinton is not a racist, and it’s actually likely she isn’t, I believe she is not above using race for political capital.
   However, she has miscalculated things. The United States of America is founded on immigrants. It all depends on when one arrived. Even the native American, the first one there, probably migrated from Asia.
   If Sen. Clinton had a good grasp on the Hispanic vote, then I suspect she lost some potential supporters today.

Obama, the role model
Why should not Obama, whose father was an immigrant who made good on the American Dream, adopt the clothing of his homeland? Many of us who have the privilege of visiting the country from which our ancestors came would do the same. It shows Barack Obama to be a proud man, and if he is willing to celebrate his heritage, then he comes with a sense of self-respect.
   A person who is willing to celebrate their heritage, at Barack Obama’s level, can be a good role model for many others who did not consider it.
   You are only as good as your dignity, and Sen. Obama has shown that.
   While I will defend Sen. Obama, I cannot be said to be a fan of his. I do not agree with all of his policies, and I even agree with Sen. Clinton that he lacks specificity to field a credible campaign if he were nominated. I am unsure of his foreign policy credentials and how he will deal with régimes that attack the values of freedom and democracy—on that Sen. Clinton should attack him. There are signs, which conservatives are prepared to cite in their opposition, of Obama’s extreme left tendencies.
   However, I would rather see a dignified man enter the White House than a woman who resorts to playground bully tactics. Though out of the current front-runners I would rather not see any of them enter.
   Campaign and attack all you want—but do not take it down to this level.

Experience
Today on National Radio here in New Zealand, Sen. Clinton stressed her foreign policy credentials, saying she did not need an instruction manual or advisers to deal with the matter.
   The last time I looked, Sen. Obama had 12 years in elected office versus her eight.
   On a day like this, I am not sure if it is worth much—even if I agree with Sen. Clinton that she has been clearer on her foreign policy during her campaign. (I won’t bring more of her prior positions on foreign policy into this yet.)
   And if she refers to the years as First Lady and wishes to count them as part of her ‘experience’, then she must stand by her decisions at that time. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton only stands by the ones she thinks makes her look good.
   Her Wal-mart support for cheap Chinese labour and her pro-NAFTA stance were fairly consistent positions during her time as First Lady of Arkansas and as First Lady.
   If Americans are upset by what they saw as a preemptive strike by President Bush on Iraq, perhaps they need to be reminded that President Clinton did the same in Kosovo. If she supported that as the President’s wife, and she supported the war on Iraq, can Democrats and those opposed to the war trust her?
   This is not a campaign about substance, as Sen. Clinton has stressed that it should be. And she has had a major hand in taking that substance away.
   Reading the blogosphere I have found Democrats who believe Clinton has ‘swift-boated’ Obama.

These tactics aren’t presidential
I would not want, as a citizen of a western country that has a history with the United States, and which sacrificed lives for the sake of freedom alongside members of the US armed forces, to think that Sen. Clinton’s pettiness and pit-bull tactics will affect the way I do business as a New Zealander.
   And being part of a family that has been in the US for a century, I do have a stake: to ensure my cousins and an aunt are not living in a place that has a questionable, élitist leader with dictatorial tendencies.
   The in-fighting can only be good for the Republican Party, whose lead candidate, Sen. John McCain, has not captured the public’s attention as well. Attacks on him have not really held up, either. A divided Democratic Party is just what the GOP needs, and they have Sen. Hillary Clinton to thank for it.

Anyone remember the 1984 Apple Macintosh TV commercial? A YouTube poster called ParkRidge47 has made an edited version with Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Big Brother role. For a home-made vid, this is really good.
   Please note that this video was put together by a Sen. Barack Obama supporter and that his URL appears at the end.

Un parodie du pub de 1984 pour l’Apple Macintosh, avec Hillary Clinton, trouvé à YouTube.

A few disclaimers first. One: I am not Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan. Two: I am in a racial minority. Three: I am not an American, even if my great-grandfather settled there 95 years ago, and I do not pretend to know everything about US history.
   There has been some furore over Sen. Clinton’s quotation, where she has been reported as saying, ‘Dr [Martin Luther] King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …it took a president to get it done.’ This has been branded as a case of a black man being unable to do something without a white man’s help.
   However, here is the full story, from what I understand. Major Garrett on Fox News quoted Barack Obama, who had said, ‘Did JFK look up at the moon and say, “Ah, false hope. Too far. Reality check. Can’t do it”? Dr King standing on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial, looking out over that magnificent crowd, the Reflecting Pool, the Washington Monument: “Sorry, guys. False hope. The dream will die. It can’t be done”?’ He asked Sen. Clinton to respond. She said:

I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said, ‘We are going to do it,’ and actually got it accomplished.

   I don’t know. The shortened quotation, while not 100 per cent accurate, and the full thing, both could smack of the idea that Dr King could not do it. I realize that Dr King could not do it alone—but you could still read in a tinge of a benevolent white man handing something to a disenfranchised black man, something which has got some people, of all races, upset in the US.
   Historically, I seem to recall that the American Civil War, in which blacks and whites fought equally courageously, was later branded by some commentators and cartoonists in the immediate post-war era as an event where the freedom from slavery was a gift from whites. It could well be a case where Sen. Clinton’s remarks are seen in the same light.
   The more optimistic reading of both quotes is that the comment, ‘it took a president to get it done,’ refers to any president, male or female, black or white (or any other colour). Note that Sen. Clinton uses the indefinite article: she does not refer specifically to ‘the President’ or LBJ here. While of course that is who we have in mind given the first part of her sentence, it can be read more positively. She believes that it is executive power that could drive through the Act, regardless of the colour of the person who holds that power.
   For me, both the full and edited quotes say virtually the same thing. One could take them either way. Both opinions are being reflected online at the moment, with more for the positive interpretation in terms of original blog posts (based on a very cursory examination of the first few pages). An interesting cross-section of opinions on both sides were unleashed earlier this month at The New York Times’ website. (Anti-Hillary readers may enjoy comment no. 5. A feminist paraphrasing at comment no. 491 is interesting.)
   I am more disturbed not by the one comment, however, but whether it is reflective of a pattern.
   Maybe I am kicking up old stuff here, but wasn’t Hillary Clinton the woman who once said that Mahatma Gandhi ‘ran a gas station down in St Louis’ in 2004?
   She backpedalled that time and said it was a lame attempt at humour, but I wouldn’t even make such a joke that would suggest one race is more predisposed to working at petrol stations than another.
   Yes, Senator. Indians pump gas. Black men need white men to help them. So much for these ‘35 years’ experience’.

I cannot hide the fact that I was no fan of the Clinton presidency, though I admit Bill has said some sensible things after leaving office, but Fielding here on Vox managed to take some shots of Slick Willy that are fabulous. The former president was at a campaign function for his wife, and he snapped two shots.
   One thing does come to mind: dammit, these Clintons know how to do visuals and sound bites darned well. Bill makes the posing look effortless and his dress sense is not so pompous as to frighten away people (a darn sight better than his missus’s pant-suits). Whatever you think of the Clintons, they are shrewd marketers and Bill is more an asset than a liability now that many people are beginning to look back at his years with rose-coloured glasses. And you know some stylist was paid thousands to choose the man’s wardrobe, and another guy was paid thousands to cut his hair, all to give that ‘Relax, the 1990s were good’ image. 
   People speak of the ‘Clinton machine’: they are understating things.
   Similarly, Harold Wilson and Labour counted on rose-coloured glasses in the 1970s when getting re-elected into the UK, even though they had made a shambles of things in the 1960s.
   Obama may be popular, but no one, on either side, should underestimate just what Chelsea’s Mom and Pop have in store. If visuals are the key, then everyone on the GOP side needs to pick up the slack.