However, I am most impressed that a majority of this conversation has stayed on track as a strategy discussion and not devolved into a political argument. I will do my best not derail this success.

For full disclosure, I am biased on this issue. I am a Democratic political consultant and Gini has already accurately described my feelings regarding FOX. With the exception of The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I find most cable and radio political news shows of either political persuasion annoying altogether.

I do want to take exception to the post above from Terrence. Obviously, I don’t agree with arguments made in the article, but that’s not the point. The article’s argument is founded on differences in policy and political belief, not public relations strategy.

Whether or not you agree with what the President is doing is irrelevant to this discussion.

I did not agree with 99% of the previous Bush administration’s actions, but I was constantly impressed with their message discipline.

The focus of this discussion is: Is Obama effective in his public relations strategy?

To understand Obama’s actions, I would argue we need to know the end goal. If he is playing chess, to borrow from a previous post, it will several months before we know who wins.

This whole discussion does highlight a topic Gini and I have discussed considerably. Is there a difference between political and corporate PR?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

The idea that my enemy is my enemy is my friend is ludicrous in this day and age. We’re now in a society of full transparency and honesty. Should you keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Yes. Should I make my enemies focus on my enemies so they’re my friends? Sure…if you can win the chess match. My guess is you cannot.

This brings up an entirely different conversation that gets me pretty heated, but you’ll have to buy me a glass of wine to hear it.

I do have a PR implication question. Even if my theory is correct is it good PR? While it may work in the short-term, isn’t PR’s job to manage the short and the long term? Does taking such a polarizing position, even if it works in the short-term, cause more harm in the long term (winning the battle vs. the war)? Just wondering.

Lorri, David, Michael, and Gentry – Perhaps one of the reasons mainstream media is dying? There are no “real” journalists left who separate church and state? As PR pros, we know how often reporters tell us they’ll write a story on our client if we buy ad space. That’s not journalism. That’s bribery. But that’s a different conversation.

Van de Walle (even though I’m not speaking to you) – I hate to admit this is right because I LOVE Olberman. But then, I’m trying to keep this about PR and not politics (I hate you).

Zoey – you’re absolutely right and when people tell me the Obama campaign are social media gurus, I’m always shocked. But it’s evident there is something in the middle. And most of the commenters here know where the middle lies.

So no one thinks Bob is imagining things…the comment above his was spam and I deleted it. I should have left it, because it was pretty funny in the light of the conversation.

I actually wanted to share when I was in Memphis this past week, one of the speakers at a Marketing Summit actually said “Obama won the election because he was a social media guru.” I was surprised to hear that statement because of course I don’t agree with it from the idea that Twitter drove election results, to the idea that Obama is a guru. But that’s the beauty of Fox and Obama dancing the dance. Folks get a tiny snippet, hear this or that, and walk away with something in the middle.

When we get all of our news from a resource that offers 140 characters and is user generated, and a media outlet that has a strong opinion and therefore editorializes its content to some degree…I’m wondering if the facts lay somewhere in the middle?
Anyway, you keep ‘em talking my friend!