It’s called Newton’s 3rd law, Mr. Obama!

This column was originally published in India in 4Ps B&M, one of that nation's most prestigious business and public relations magazines.

Ned Barnett is a Senior Political Media Analyst with experience of running media campaigns for former US Presidential candidates at state level. He writes exclusively for 4Ps B&M on why Obama’s PR campaign is backfiring...

America’s politicians are typically divided between two parties (there are other parties, but they seldom gain representation in Congress, and virtually never achieve real power, even in local or state elections); and typically, politicians “follow the party line.” However, because they are elected individually and are required to live in and come from the district they represent, they tend to oppose their own party when they fear for their own re-election. By pushing the American people so hard that they feel inclined to push back, the Obama administration has motivated hundreds of thousands of Americans to actually pay attention to politics, to get involved and to CARE.

During the Presidential campaign, Obama’s background as a “hardball” community organiser worked remarkably well – however, now that he’s governing, it is backfiring. Why? Because he seems to not be listening to Americans – and when Americans don’t feel that they’re being heard, they speak louder. Please remember, that in the US, the first element of the Bill of Rights allows us Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Petition the Government for the Redress of Grievances. By not listening to people’s free speech and by ignoring their petition to redress grievances, the Obama administration is courting that backlash.

There is a group – once called “the Silent Majority” – of people who tend to not speak out. They often vote, but they don’t protest or demonstrate. They are used to doing things for themselves, and they are much more comfortable “writing a letter” to an elected official, or the local newspaper, than going out in public with their home-made signs. However, because of Obama’s community organising initiatives and his “Change” agenda during the campaign, they have found the courage to step out of their comfort zone and speak out in public. They are not career protesters or life-long political agitators-for-change – this is not their natural milieu, and because of that, they are more emotionally tied up in being heard (and much more prone to real, sustained anger when they’re not listened to).

I am not implying that America is on the verge of a real revolution (of the armed revolt kind), but please remember this from our history if we want to understand this backlash – that it was not the Stamp Act (taxation without representation) that caused the revolution in 1776 – it was the refusal of King George and his Parliament to listen with interest to the American Colonists’ legitimate grievances that led directly to the Revolution that created the American Republic.

There are indeed precedents where Presidents have used the power of organised supporters (union members for instance) to push hard for their programs – the most obvious example is President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the depths of the Great Depression. He was a master at twisting people into activism, and it was effective. However, without the alternative media of today (cable news, Internet), the opposition was unable to push back. His efforts in passing the Communications Act of 1934 (he became President in 1933) reinforced the mandate that broadcasters had to broadcast “in the public interest” which enabled him to monopolise the media as never before to reach people. However, the times were different – especially the technology – so it is hard to compare them directly.

This is especially important in light of the question about how Obama’s media handling is going to change – I don’t think it will. To date, President Obama has seemed to be “tone deaf” – he hasn’t learned from mistakes (he hasn’t even acknowledged his mistakes – he’ll apologise overseas for America’s past actions, but won’t acknowledge his own mistakes). This is, in fact, remarkable. Even Nixon acknowledged mistakes – only Obama among all of America’s Presidents has refused to admit his mistakes.

Clearly, he’s seen his poll numbers fall – he’s seen how his confrontational tactics, especially in the last few weeks, have only ramped up anger and activity of the opposition Yet, he’s only gotten more confrontational. So – unless he has a real “eureka” moment, he’ll continue as is – waiting out his opposition, seeing if they will continue or – like the opposition in Iran and China – fade out after the initial enthusiasm. That may indeed be the right strategy – in democracies, it’s hard to maintain the focus of the “silent majority” who have jobs to go to, bills to pay, families to raise and other life issues that take them away from politics and re-immerse them in what we call “real life.”

Guest Editorial - Why All Candidates Need PR

By Jube Dankworth - Net Media Consultants - jube@netmediaconsultants.com


Why All Political Candidates, Local to National, Need a Public Relations Professional


Although most candidates and all politicians believe they are immortal, the truth of the matter is we are all besieged with human tendencies, just ask Governor Sanford. When Immortals go into battle, they need a Watcher –someone to watch their backs. Unlike the Watchers in the famous Highlander saga, the politician’s Watcher – his or her Public Relations Professional – is (or should be) involved in the Immortal’s strategy and planning before the battle. These savvy communications pros evaluate and improve the Immortal’s performance before the next battle. They manage the staging (what is behind the candidate, who is around the candidate and what the candidate is wearing), the message and the conditions of each encounter with the media and the public.

Okay, I know what you are saying, that’s the job of the Chief of Staff, the campaign manager or the campaign consultant. However, most Chiefs of Staff, most campaign managers and especially most political consultants do not understand public relations – at least not from a public relations point of view; they see everything only through their political glasses, and miss great opportunities for good PR (and often overlook impending gotcha moments). They understand the battlefield. They know which precinct chairs, state party leaders and activists are on their candidate's side and which ones are not. They know what it takes to change those views. They know the fund raisers and who has the best coffees and cocktail parties. They know the field. Their job is to set the strategy for the campaign and implement it.

However, having a public relations professional on the team is similar to having an extra general on the battlefield. The PR Pros can keep an eye on the whole field while the consultant and manager are in the field with the troops, in contact with the enemy. The PR Pro can see counterattacks coming in – and they understand when a strategic move for the campaign is not a good move for the candidate, or when a seemingly clever gimmick has the potential to blow up in their faces, thanks to the ever-watchful “gotcha” media. A good Public Relations Professional would never have allowed Governor Palin to have 3 interviews with Katie Couric, no matter what the campaign folks thought – and a good PR pro would have cautioned Michele Obama to leave her $6,000 purse at home That pro would have also pointed out that an unannounced fly-over of Manhattan would be a media disaster of the first order.

Even working with local candidates, a good Public Relations Professional can enhance the campaign while keeping the candidate out of trouble. Public relations has its own timetable for events and media contacts, and a PR expert with a keen sense of the media’s schedule knows where a candidate’s message can fit into a breaking news trend or how it can dovetail with a local group’s cause, movement or event. With these extra tools, candidates will attend events and talk to groups outside the normal political box of events, all while avoiding costly mistakes.

A Public Relations Professional would also create a “war room” fast-response team whose job it would be to keep tabs on negative reports on the candidate, both in the regular media as well as blogs, social media and websites. By finding and addressing this sort of negative publicity when they first begin, the Public Relations Professional can avert many media storms that would otherwise sideline a candidate. A positive response in the same news cycle can kill bad publicity – but a day-late denial only sounds defensive, and prolongs a story instead of burying it.

If you are an Immortal – a political candidate or office-holder about to mount up for the fight – consider the ramifications … then find a good, savvy Public Relations Professional who believes in your cause and can help you win the fight. After all there can be only one.

Four Lies

Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases forPeople Earning Under $250,000 …

And for Those Earning as Little as $25,000 a Year

By Ned Barnett

Note - this article has been published in edited form in American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com) on October 27, 2008. Thanks to editor Thomas Lifson for permission to reprint that article here.

I confess.

Senator Obama’s two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of “working Americans,” intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I’ve earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes – I might even get a break – and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama’s dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises to make me look at what I’d been paying before President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline – they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the “Bush Tax Cuts” lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I’ve worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns – I know how “promises” work – so I analyzed Senator Obama’s promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn’t “count” allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse – allowing the rates to return to a higher levels – is not actually a “tax increase.” It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up – a lot – but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won’t actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he’s passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama’s claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase – they’ll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. This is detailed in the charts (below).

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 – Senator Obama’s benchmark year – you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn’t call it a “tax increase,” but your taxes under “President” Obama will increase – significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I was keeping score, I’d call that Tax Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 – the most recent year for which tax data is available – only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual’s earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap – and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket – and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers – but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer’s share of the tax increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/FactSheetSeniors.pdf) that he “might” create a “donut” – an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn’t raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama’s “donut plan” was quietly removed from his website.

This “explanation” sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I was keeping score, I’d call this Tax Lie #2.

Senator Obama has also said that he will raise Capital Gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he’s aiming at “fat cats” who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have capital investments – through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in personal portfolios. Half of all Americans will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.

Under “President” Obama, if you sell off a $100,000 investment – perhaps to help put your two boys through college – instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you’ll pay $20,000 under Obama’s plan. That’s a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

No question – for 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses – and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 – and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don’t “pay” taxes – they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you ca see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation’s own taxes go up, you don’t see it – its automatic – but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product’s price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices – those pass-through taxes – when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There’s not a politician alive who hasn’t be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips – no new taxes” proved false, he lost the support of his base – and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

This year, however, we don’t have to wait for the proof – Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he’s also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that’s the truth.

“President” Obama’s Hidden Tax Increase

How Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to Lapse Will Raise Taxes for

Everybody who Pays Federal Income Taxes

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tax: Single	$10,581	$9,304	$9,231	$10,581	$1,350
Tax: Married – Filing Joint	$8,293	$6,796	$6,781	$8,293	$1,512
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$11,143	$9,304	$9,231	$11,143	$1,912
Tax: Head of Household	$9,424	$8,189	$8,094	$9,424	$1,330

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000
Tax: Single	$17,923	$15,739	$15,620	$17,923	$2,303
Tax: Married – Filing Joint	$15,293	$12,364	$12,219	$15,293	$3,074
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$18,803	$16,083	$15,972	$18,803	$2,831
Tax: Head of Household	$16,424	$14,439	$14,344	$16,424	$2,080

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Tax: Single	$25,673	$22,739	$22,620	$25,673	$3,053
Tax: Married – Filing Joint	$22,293	$18,614	$18,469	$22,293	$3,824
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$27,515	$23,715	$23,504	$27,515	$4,011
Tax: Head of Household	$23,699	$20,741	$20,594	$23,699	$3,015

* When “President” Obama allows President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase -

Is the election over (four weeks out)? History says "Hell No"

By Ned Barnett (c) 2008

A lot of spinners are contending that the election is now over - we can all go home, because Obama has it in the bag. And, while some polls show Obama ahead by single digits (but outside the margin for error), Zogby has the election within a single point.

Zogby's right. History (going back to '68) tells us that this election is not over - it will be finally "decided" no sooner than the last weekend before the election.

You can always tell when somebody has drunk deeply from the Kool Aid when he pronounces this election is over, and does so four weeks before the ballots are cast. The last time a US Presidential Election did NOT come right down to the wire was ’84 with Reagan (if somebody cared to argue how not-close the Clinton/Dole election in '96 was four years before the election, I won’t argue, but it was a lot closer than most like to recall, and that even in ’96, Clinton didn’t get a simple majority).

In recent times, ultra-close elections include

· Humphrey/Nixon ’68 (Humphrey was in the lead across the board right up to the last week – he peaked too early and Nixon won by a whisker)

· Ford/Carter ’76 - it was right down to the wire, and while not as close as '68, Carter won by a razor-thin margin ... the election might have turned on Ford's "Poland" gaffe in a pre-election debate

· Carter/Reagan/Anderson ’80 (it was single-digit until just about two weeks before the election, when the “misery index” - "are you better off now than you were in '76" question began to resonate with the populace)

· Bush/Dukakis ’88 (the Duke was 17 points ahead on Labor Day and he was still leading in some polls mid-October)

· Bush/Clinton/Perot ’92 – Clinton won with 43 percent of the vote

· Clinton/Dole/Perot ’96 – Clinton won with 48 percent of the vote, and he was only one blunder away from losing (of course, he didn’t blunder until a couple years later, with Monica)

· Bush/Gore ’00 – this was decided a month after the election by the Supreme Court – and the media only finally satisfied themselves that Bush really did win Florida a year later after the “non-partisan” media Election Fact-check commission tried five different ways to calculate the votes so Gore could have won, and failed in all five tries and finally gave up

· Bush/Kerry ’04 – not as close as ’00, but still right down to the wire, right down to the final days

With this history, and with the election polls in what is essentially a dead heat (in the last two weeks, first McCain was ahead by single digits outside the margin for error, then Obama was ahead by single digits outside the margin for error, now Obama is ahead – in one major poll – by just one point, well within the margin for error) – the election is far closer (at four weeks out) than Carter/Reagan was in ’80 or Bush/Dukakis was in ’88, and closer than any of Clinton’s or Bush-43’s elections at this point.

In short, unless you drink the Kool Aid, this race is too close to call – each candidate is just one big blunder away from giving his opponent a decisive-seeming lead (which could erode if terrorists attack, or if Wall Street takes another 1,500-point plunge, or if something embarrassing and personal came out about either candidate). Almost any scandal or "gaffe" could overturn the margin of victory, for either candidate, right up to the last weekend before the campaign.

This election could go either way, but the only thing we can be certain of is that nobody who says the election is over knows what l he’s talking about. Either he’s ignoring the news or he’s ignoring Presidential election history.

What Senator McCain Must Do To Remain Competitive

Ned Barnett © 2008

Note - this article is based on my interview with my most recent interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business. An edited version of this article appeared June 15th published in American Thinker.

It’s often been said that, “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” – and if that is true (and it is), Senator John McCain seems intent on going on a hunger strike.

Senator Obama has proved to be the most effective fund-raiser in the history of American politics, at a time when Republican candidate-presumptive Senator John McCain seems to be doing all he can to make sure that he cannot raise enough in campaign contributions to stay competitive.

If Senator McCain fails in his bid for the presidency, more than any other candidate in recent memory, he will well and truly have been “hoist on his own petard.” His McCain-Feingold law deprives him of the resources he might raise from well-heeled individual donors – including his remarkably wealthy wife, Cindy, who is as incapable today as Theresa Heinz Kerry had been four years ago of financially supporting her candidate husband. However, it’s not too late for Senator McCain to recognize what he’s done to himself, as well as how he can turn this around.

Because of restrictions placed on fundraising by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill became law, big donors are dramatically limited. This, in turn, puts a premium on the quantity of donors, rather than the quantity of donations, and elevates the importance – for each candidate – of continuing to court their party’s “core” who are the most likely donors. Senator Obama has done an exceptional job of capturing the zeitgeist of the Democratic Party’s core, and millions of core Democrats have opened their wallets.

These core party loyalists’ per-donor contributions average under $100 – and, according to an article in the June 9^th issue of Crain’s Chicago Business, “45% of the $265 million Mr. Obama has raised came from donations of $200 or less,” and The Hill reports that Senator Obama may raise as much as $100 million in June alone – the sheer volume of those donations has created a tidal-wave of political “mother’s milk” for himself and other Democratic Party candidates.

On the other hand, with the sole exception of his stirring and persuasive CPAC speech in early February, Senator McCain has adopted a strategy of running away from his conservative base in an effort to attract moderate and independent voters. While that strategy may work in attracting voters, it has proved – so far – to be a dismal failure as a foundation for successful fund-raising.

Since his speech at CPAC in early February, where McCain made a seemingly effective effort to paint himself as a conservative, he has done nothing to reach out to his Conservative base, and many things to alienate that Conservative base. While McCain may be right that it will be Independent voters who will put him over the top in November, it is wrong to think that Independents will donate to his campaign. Donations are the realm of the motivated true-believers, and McCain has intentionally alienated them (figuring that, in November, they’ll have nowhere else to go). That could be his fatal mistake. That may explain why MAPLight.org, a non-profit campaign financing watchdog group, reports that while Senator Obama has raised more than $272 million as of June 9, 2008, Senator McCain has raised just $106 million dollars – barely 39% of the amount raised by his opponent.

Traditionally (i.e., in the campaigns since Reagan defeated Carter in 1980) Republicans have always out-fund-raised the Democrats – and they did this primarily because they were able to motivate their passionate Conservative base – men and women ready to put their money where their mouth is. However, this year, Democrat Obama easily out-raised McCain at every turn. Core Democrats are highly motivated by a positive call to change America and the world.

Core Republicans, on the other hand, have been largely turned off by maverick Republican McCain’s consistent Bush-bashing, along with his “crossing the aisle” support of issues dear to the hearts of Liberals … but not Conservatives. At a time when he desperately needs the passionate support of the Conservative base, Senator McCain has been so busy proving that he’s not running for “Bush’s Third Term” that he’s starving his campaign of donations – the money he needs to stay competitive.

What can Senator McCain do to turn this situation around – to remain competitive for moderate and independent voters while appealing directly to his Conservative base?

He needs to run against the Bush’s Third Term charge, but he needs to do so in positive terms, not negative terms, and he needs to give Conservatives solid and affirmative reasons to not only vote for Senator McCain, but to contribute to his campaign.

For instance, he could propose several major Conservative initiatives, such as these three representative samples:

1. Appoint Supreme Court and Appellate justices who will interpret the constitution, rather than rewriting it – then publicly provide Conservatives a short-list of the kinds of people he’d appoint. This would be a list of about a dozen rock-solid judges who are not partisan and not prone to legislating from the bench – men and women of sterling character and exemplary judicial experience – men and women who will ease the concerns of Conservatives without alienating moderates and independents.

2. Expand and energize the development of the missile defense shield. With Korea a nuclear country with operational medium-range missiles, and with Iran threatening to become yet another rogue nuclear country, also with medium-range missiles, Senator McCain could commit to implementing a missile defense shield that will protect the US, our European allies and Israel from premeditated covert nuclear attack. Again, this will reassure Conservatives without driving away thoughtful moderates and independents.

3. Implement trade regulations that exactly mirror those of countries who are our trading partners – so those countries who want free trade with us will have to return the favor, while those who won’t extend free trade rights to US countries (i.e., China, Japan) will face restrictions identical to those they impose on US companies. This would delight even the most ardent free-trade Conservatives, while resonating among moderates and independents as being eminently fair.

An approach similar to this would serve to differentiate McCain from Bush – while at the same time gaining accolades from the Conservative Base. Instead, to differentiate himself, the Senator has joined the legion of Bush bashers – he may hope to win over liberals, but in doing so, he is alienating his Conservative base – the most likely potential source of campaign financing.

Can McCain Remain Competitive?

By Ned Barnett

Originally published in American Thinker, June 15, 2008: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/can_mccain_remain_competitive.html

If money is the mother's milk of politics, then Senator John McCain seems intent on going on a hunger strike.

Barack Obama has proved to be the most effective fund-raiser in the history of American politics, at a time when McCain seems to be doing all he can to make sure that he cannot raise enough in campaign contributions to stay competitive.

If Senator McCain fails in his bid for the presidency, more than any other candidate in recent memory he will well and truly have been hoist on his own petard. His McCain-Feingold law deprives him of the resources he might raise from well-heeled individual donors -- including his remarkably wealthy wife, Cindy, who is as incapable today as Theresa Heinz Kerry had been four years ago of financially supporting her candidate husband. However, it's not too late for Senator McCain to recognize what he's done to himself, as well as how he can turn this around.

Because of restrictions placed on fundraising by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill became law, big donors are dramatically limited. This, in turn, puts a premium on the quantity of donors, rather than the size of each donation, and elevates the importance for each candidate of continuing to court their ideological core, who are the most likely donors. Senator Obama has done an exceptional job of capturing the zeitgeist of the Democratic Party's left and many youths, and millions have opened their wallets. Small donors outweigh those who max out.

About 45% of the $265 million Mr. Obama has raised came from donations of $200 or less, but a third came from contributions of $2,300 or more.

The Hill reports that Senator Obama may raise as much as $100 million in June alone. The sheer volume of those donations has created a tidal-wave of political mother's milk, with spillage onto other Democratic Party candidates. Small donors can make multiple contributions, and with 4 and half months to the election, this motivated group will continue to give.

On the other hand, with the sole exception of his stirring and persuasive CPAC speech in early February, Senator McCain has adopted a strategy of running away from his conservative base in an effort to attract moderate and independent voters. While that strategy may work in attracting voters, it has so far proved to be a dismal failure as a foundation for successful fund-raising.

Since his speech at CPAC in early February, where McCain made a seemingly effective effort to paint himself as a conservative, he has done nothing to reach out to his Conservative base, and many things to alienate it. While McCain may be right that it will be independent voters who will put him over the top in November, few Independents will donate to his campaign. Donations are the realm of the motivated true-believers, and McCain has intentionally alienated those of the GOP (figuring that, in November, they'll have nowhere else to go).

That could be his fatal mistake. That may explain why MAPLight.org, a non-profit campaign financing watchdog group, reports that while Senator Obama has raised more than $272 million as of June 9, 2008, Senator McCain has raised just $106 million dollars -- barely 39% of the amount raised by his opponent.

Traditionally (i.e., in the campaigns since Reagan defeated Carter in 1980) Republicans have always out-fund-raised the Democrats. They did this primarily because they were able to motivate their passionate Conservative base, people ready to put their money where their mouth is. But this base has been largely turned off by maverick McCain's consistent Bush-bashing, along with his crossing the aisle support of issues dear to the hearts of Liberals. At a time when he desperately needs the passionate support of the Conservative base, Senator McCain has been so busy proving that he's not running for "Bush's Third Term" that he's starving his campaign of donations -- the money he needs to stay competitive.

McCain must turn this situation around, remaining competitive among moderate and independent voters, while appealing directly to his Conservative base. He needs to give Conservatives solid and affirmative reasons to contribute to his campaign., volunteer, and turn out to vote, while not alienating centrists. He needs to campaign on issues that put the left on the defensive. Three examples:

Judges: McCain could campaign on his pledge to appoint Supreme Court and Appellate justices who will interpret the Constitution, rather than rewriting it and publicly provide Conservatives a short-list of the kinds of people he'd appoint. Enforcing the law as written has gut level appeal to the base, and it makes sense to most people not on the left. He could supply a list of about a dozen rock-solid judges who are not partisan and not prone to legislating from the bench.

Missile Defense: McCain could campaign on expanding and energizing the development of the missile defense shield. With Korea having operational medium-range nuclear missiles, and with Iran developing medium-range missiles and nukes and proclaiming Israel a goner, Senator McCain could commit to implementing a missile defense shield that will protect the US, our European allies and Israel from premeditated covert nuclear attack.

Small Government: McCain sells himself as a fiscal conservative, and is positioned to appeal to centrists sick of taxes and stories of wasteful spending. But he rarely sells himself as an advocate of small government. This is a core value with crossover appeal.

Ned Barnett is a political strategist and the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, Nevada, and writes a regular column on crisis PR for the International Association of Business Communicators.