Merrill Lynch, your savings and politics

Well, Merrill Lynch, the very symbol of Wall Street’s bulls, got eaten yesterday by the bear market. And by its own pathetic management. Something tells me that the losers here — as at Lehman Brothers — will be employees and those of us who entrusted our savings and retirement accounts to the so-called financial experts. So it goes.

Here’s one communication angle on all of this. I learned last night via Twitter that Bank of America was negotiating to buy Merrill Lynch. Later last night the Wall Street Journal sent me an alert on my Blackberry that the deal was done — for $50 billion. And oh by the way. While this was going on, the meltdown of Lehman Brothers became complete, with the firm heading for bankruptcy after the federal government refused a bailout. I guess Lehman Brothers didn’t warrant the same treatment as Freddie and Fannie and the late, great Bear Stearns. New media — old problems.

Here’s the short take, from USA Today:

Rising mortgage defaults amid the collapse of the housing bubble left many financial firms holding billions in investments backed by bad loans. Merrill Lynch, AIG (AIG) and Lehman are just the latest victims of the credit crunch, which has also clobbered mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), subprime lenders IndyMac Bank and Countrywide Financial, and investment bank Bear Stearns.

This is all kind of scary — and sad. For one, thousands of people are losing jobs and homes because of this. And many people, including me, reply on Wall Street now for a large chunk of our retirement savings. And the debacle in housing is pretty well documented now. Although something tells me that the crisis in home loans is far from over. Look out below.

So here’s a second communication angle. When do you think I (and thousands of others) will hear anything directly from Merrill Lynch? I’m sure that my wealth-creation adviser at Merrill will have bigger fish to fry today than to call me. I almost never hear from him during downturns on Wall Street in any event. And I imagine he’ll be checking his own retirement account this morning, most of which is most likely heavily invested in Merrill Lynch stock. Well Mr. Adviser. You’re a long-term investor now just like the rest of us. Won’t even charge him for that advice.

But how about Merrill Lynch’s public relations staff? Surely they got the Twitter message last night at the same time I did. I checked the Merrill Lynch investment website at 4 a.m. Nothing. Then checked back at 8 a.m. and here’s the first part of the news release:

Bank of America Buys Merrill Lynch Creating Unique Financial Services Firm

Combines leading global wealth management, capital markets and advisory company with largest consumer and corporate bank in U.S.

CHARLOTTE — Bank of America Corporation today announced it has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a $50 billion all-stock transaction that creates a company unrivalled in its breadth of financial services and global reach.

“Acquiring one of the premier wealth management, capital markets, and advisory companies is a great opportunity for our shareholders,” Bank of America Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis said. “Together, our companies are more valuable because of the synergies in our businesses.”

“Merrill Lynch is a great global franchise and I look forward to working with Ken Lewis and our senior management teams to create what will be the leading financial institution in the world with the combination of these two firms,” said John Thain, chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch.

Typical corporate BS. And as an investor, sure doesn’t make me feel much better. Fact is that Merrill had to do something before it ended up like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. As reported in The Wall Street Journal online this morning (by subscription only) Merrill is being sold at “about two-thirds of its value of one year ago and half its all-time peak value of early 2007.”

But more importantly, to employees and investors, the stock price of both Merrill and Lehman Brothers has been in a free fall. Merrill Lynch common stock closed Friday at $17.05, down from its 52-week high of $78.66. Lehman Brothers common stock closed Friday at $3.65, down from its 52-week high of $67.73.

Good luck to employees at those two companies — and thousands of others on Wall Street — who are sitting back and watching their jobs, savings and retirement accounts evaporate. And good luck to the rest of us. Because even if the Bush administration doesn’t want to admit it, the U.S. economy is in deep doo-doo.

And maybe the events on Wall Street this weekend will be the spark that gets the presidential candidates back to considering some of the important issues facing us in this country. Here’s from a Politico article, “Bank meltdown wallops campaigns“:

America’s banking instability could upend the final 50 days of the presidential campaign, with both candidates forced to confront a calamity that has gotten only glancing attention during the first 20 months of the race for the White House.

Red flags about the nation’s economic infrastructure have been popping up at least since the collapse in March of the investment bank Bear Stearns. But neither Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) nor Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has talked in detail about the potential consequences for voters and the government.

Until now, the crisis seemed like a confusing Wall Street story. That all ended with the fast-moving events of Sunday, which The New York Times called “one of the most extraordinary days in Wall Street’s history.” A CNBC special report on Sunday night called it “a complete realignment of Wall Street.”

And that was before the extraordinary 9:30 p.m. announcement by the Federal Reserve of new efforts to shore up markets.

So it’s no longer an insider’s game. The crisis is now at a tipping point where Wall Street will visibly affect Main Street: Home buyers, consumers and entrepreneurs will have even more trouble getting credit, slowing the nation’s job machinery.

We heard this before; it’s worth repeating.

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

The Palin Doctrine

I drove to Pittsburgh yesterday to visit with my Mom and Dad, and my brothers and their families. As with most of the country, it appears that we’re pretty much evenly split on the upcoming presidential election. But we agreed on one thing. The furor over Sarah Palin and the so-called Bush doctrine is ridiculous.

The short take: Charlie Gibson earlier this week interviewed Sarah Palin for the ABC newscast and for 20/20. He asked her views on the Bush doctrine. Ah, apparently the Alaska governor didn’t have that one nailed down. Does anyone?

Well, no.

Apparently there are many versions of the Bush Doctrine. Here’s from a Washington Post article by the same title.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin seemed puzzled Thursday when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked her whether she agrees with the “Bush doctrine.”

“In what respect, Charlie?” she replied.

Intentionally or not, the Republican vice presidential nominee was on to something. After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea — enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document — that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.

Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president’s second-term “freedom agenda”; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a “coalition of the willing” if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about — the doctrine of preemptive war.

Maybe Barack Obama should have selected Gibson to be his vice president running mate. It appears that Charlie is the only one who can explain the Bush doctrine. As though that is important for some reason.

And good grief. Isn’t it a little late to learn that Bush was following a plan — a “doctrine”?

Oh well. The national debate centers now on whether Palin has the experience to be vice president — and more importantly, president. And the media talking heads can flap their tongues all they want — I don’t think it matters to the majority of voters.

David Paul Kuhn writing on Politico lists “5 Reasons Why McCain Has Pulled Ahead.” One — that Palin has energized the Republican base and closed what is being called the “enthusiasm gap.” Is experience an issue. Well, not really. And if it is, it’s not a concern limited to just Palin.

“While Democrats have continued to hit at Palin’s inexperience, only 36 percent of likely voters believe Palin lacks the proper experience while 47 percent said the same of Obama.”

And what’s going on with Obama? A year ago I really didn’t think that the Democrats could possibly lose this election. Of course, I thought, like most, that Hillary was going to be the nominee. Still, Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post (and distributed to The Plain Dealer) has an interesting view, one that links Obama and Palin, “Palin’s trajectory similar to Obama’s.”

“But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain’s Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama’s meteoric rise was based not on issues – there was not a dime’s worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues – but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

“The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer’s remorse, was the Democrats’ realization that the arc of Obama’s celebrity had peaked and entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline. It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four years. But no one can levitate forever.”

Well, we’ll see. As the philosopher Yogi Berra opines: “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.”

By the way, not much talk in Pittsburgh yesterday about the game tonight between the Steelers and the Browns. I guess unlike presidential elections some contests are just never in doubt.

September 11 and pig politics

I’ll make this work. Trust me. I just came back from a few days in D.C. And aside from being amazed that you can’t get a cup of coffee until 5:30 a.m., I’m struck by how divided people are over the upcoming presidential election and issues facing our country in general. I was at a conference that brought together people from business, community nonprofits, government and education.

There’s a lot of talk. Not sure about how much listening. And certainly I’m convinced that among this group at least, minds are pretty much made up. Typical? Something tells me yes. But I guess we’ll see in the next two months.

Still, I was thinking while running this morning that we sure didn’t capitalize on the spirit of unity sparked by the 9/11 attacks. Remember when there was an American flag outside many (most?) homes? Here’s from Alan Jackson — in case we forgot.

Probably won’t be humming that tune while running for a while. Cause, folks, there sure ain’t no love, civility and at times common sense in politics or the national debate over issues these days.

Jane Swift, the former governor of Massachusetts, spoke at the Corporate Voices for Working Families annual meeting as part of a panel discussion involving the campaign, politics and legislative issues. She talked some about problems we face in education — where many students leave school unprepared for jobs — if they graduate at all. And she made a compelling point. One that I endorse.

She said that we have failed to attract great teachers into our schools.

And she added: “The lack of a sense of urgency on this issue appeals me.”

I’m thinking she is absolutely right. And then I made my way to the airport, had a beer and watched some TV while waiting for my flight. The big story: Obama’s comment about McCain’s economic plan. “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years,” Obama said.

And as reported in the online version of The San Francisco Chronicle:

The McCain campaign immediately jumped on the comment, arguing that it was a sexist remark directed at Palin, the GOP’s first woman on a presidential ticket. In her acceptance speech last week, she had referred to herself in a joke about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

OK. Now Jane Swift reenters the story. According to a story in the Boston Globe (online) has “signed on to lead the defense of Palin’s record.”

Citing the remarkable similarities in their biographies, the former acting governor of Massachusetts this week signed up as a leader of Republican efforts to defend the record of Alaska’s governor, Sarah Palin. Swift, 43, was tapped by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to lead a “truth squad” defending his 44-year-old vice presidential pick.

“When issues of opportunities for women and for mothers are being discussed, I feel like I can say something that helps put these issues in the proper perspective so that my daughters aren’t fighting these battles 20 years from now,” Swift said in a phone interview between her various TV and radio appearances yesterday.

“It’s disappointing that we’re still not to the point where we can deal appropriately with gender questions in politics,” she added. “We really should be able to talk about Governor Palin’s accomplishments without people raising on TV whether or not she’s capable of doing the job.”

I’m not discounting the importance of looking at Sarah Palin’s background or experience. Or Barack Obama’s for that matter.

And good for Jane Swift if she want to enter that debate. She is a compelling advocate.

But it’s 9/11. Shouldn’t we be talking just a little more about the economy, the war in Iraq, homeland security. You know. And yeah — about how to get excellent teachers into our classrooms. And keep them there.

Washington and the coffee conspiracy

Well, maybe no conspiracy. But I have a new theory about what’s wrong with this country. It doesn’t appear you can get any coffee in Washington until about 5:30 a.m. And I don’t think anyone starts working until 9 or 10. Good grief. And we’re worried about global competitiveness. My only hope is the Starbucks across the street from where I’m staying. Yeah. It’s come to that.

I’m here this week for the annual meeting of Corporate Voices for Working Families and for a breakfast we are holding Wednesday to honor members of Congress for their leadership roles in advocating legislation that benefits working families. The flight from Cleveland yesterday was uneventful, following the now expected strip search going through security. I wonder though what they mean by “in the event of an unexpected water landing?” Would one ever be expected between Cleveland and Washington? I’m starting to worry when people tell me things like that.

And after nearly a decade in the academy I’m starting to get back into the business buzzword game. I was talking with a guy at Kodak Friday about brief  talking points we were writing. He said he had a lot on his plate. Wanted to know if I had “the bandwidth” to do it. And he asked me that not once but several times. Ugh. I don’t know. Maybe I’ll tee it up as a point of entry at one of our panel presentations today.

What got we thinking about buzzwords — words without meaning to most people — was an article I read yesterday by a writer who is precise, colorful and specific: William Safire. He also knows the rules and when to break them. He wrote an op-ed in The New York Time Sunday, “The Maverick Ticket.” The point. Safire, a former Nixon speechwriter and NYT pundit, took a look at the speechs given at the conventions by Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden.

Give it a read. It’s great. Both from the standpoint of how Safire views the speeches. And from the standpoint of how to write a commentary in general. Here’s a sample:

Then the St. Paul convention was hit by Hurricane Sarah and her admirable family. The cliché is that — faced by part of a party long troubled by McCain’s different drumming — the governor of Alaska was able to “energize the base” of social conservatives. The more salient fact is that her skillful speech and joyful demeanor was even more impressive than Obama’s introduction to the Democratic Party four years ago. The establishment-shaking candidate was a happy warrior in the glare of major-league scrutiny. Most of the huge, uncommitted audience at home enjoyed this strong woman’s national audition; the first test of McCain’s gamble paid off.

Though her “lipstick” ad lib got the laugh (and may have offended pit-bull fanciers), she forcefully delivered a Sorensenesque line that crystallized the choice this year’s voters face: “There are those who use change to promote their careers. And then, there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”

And Safire knows something about bashing the Washington media elites. Remember, he worked with Tricky Dick and Spiro Agnew. So he has some perspective.

As one whose only claim to coinage fame is in Spiro Agnew’s 1970 nattering nabobs of negativism, I have an attack dog in that fight (though not a maligned pit bull).

Well, it’s almost 5:30 a.m. Wonder if I have the bandwidth to make it across the street to Starbucks. I’d like to hit the streets before the Washington media elite roll out of bed.

Corporate Voices and social media

It’s really been a great summer for running here in Northeast Ohio. Especially if you hit the concrete at 5 a.m. every morning. I don’t recall a day when it has rained that early; and until this morning, almost no wind, just a light breeze. I’ll probably see some rain this weekend though. I’m heading to Washington along with Hurricane Hanna. Oh well.

Next week should be interesting. I’ll be at the annual meeting of Corporate Voices for Working Families — listening to presentations by some heavy hitters in education, government and business. We’re going to have representatives from the Obama and McCain campaigns give us a look at the fall elections. And Tony Wagner, who has written several books on the crisis in public school education, will be one of the keynote presenters. Wagner heads the Change Leadership Group, part of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

But I’m really excited about a communications panel that I am organizing for the meeting. The topic: Merging the Paths of Old and New Media. Joining me on the panel are:

Paull Young, senior account executive, Converseon in New York City. I expect Paull is known to several readers of this blog; we have mutual friends Kait Swanson, Abby Laner and Luke Armour. I’ve never met Paull. But we have been talking now for about a year via blog posts, e-mail and Twitter.

Sacha Chua, a Web 2.0 consultant and developer with IBM in Canada. I wrote previously about the work Sacha is doing to enhance internal communications with a very diverse workforce at IBM and elsewhere. She really gets it.

And John Wolf, senior director of public relations at Marriott. John’s background is in broadcast journalism, but now he is implementing a variety of new communications activities involving social media and different approaches to news media relations. And Marriott is one of the company’s where the CEO does blog — regularly and very well. Bill Marriott doesn’t know how to use a computer. So an assistant takes his handwritten posts and formats them. You can follow the blog on Twitter.

It’s a new communications world folks. And that’s what we will be talking about. How to merge old and new media into a communications strategy that gets results.

I’ll be writing about the communications panel and the meeting next week. And I’ll try not to get into any trouble with the Washington media elite. Yeah, the unfair and uncivil coverage of Sarah Palin still bugs me.

Sarah Palin: The hockey mom scores

Well, I haven’t been up that late since New Year’s Eve (probably mid-80s). But there I was just a few hours ago watching Sarah Palin on TV. Glad I did because I think she scored a lot of points both with the convention delegates and the American people.

And I’m interested in this for several reasons. Here’s one. Palin is a political outsider. She’s not embraced by the “inside-the-Beltway” media crowd — who basically have gotten just about everything else about this election wrong starting with dismissing Obama in Iowa. I wrote about that yesterday.

And I guess Palin had some of the same thoughts. Here’s from her speech last night, as reported in The Washington Post this morning:

“I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion — I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

It’s not a good strategy to run an election against the news media. Spiro Agnew tried that — and, well that didn’t turn out so well.

So now we’ll see if Palin and McCain can control the message.

Wonder where the Obama Girl has been during all of this?

PRKent moves “inside-the-Beltway”

Stick with me for a minute with the title. It will work. But first — I was thinking while running this morning that I really want to start writing more about education and some of the other issues I’m working on now with Corporate Voices for Working Families in Washington. Yet I’m still fried about the pathetic media coverage involving Sarah Palin and her daughter.

OK. I’m going to get over it. And I’m not even planning to vote for her. But the news coverage these past few days says something about the significant changes that have reshaped journalism in the country. It also says something about the “inside-the-Beltway” mentality that really does exist. And not just from the standpoint of the news media. But how legislators and advocacy people (of which I’m one) and groups work to shape public policy.

I’m not convinced that those who spend all their lives living and working inside-the -Beltway really are in step with what’s going on throughout this country. I felt that way when I first started working with government relations people and organizations in Washington in the early 1980s. I feel the same way today.

Here’s an interesting story in the Wall Street Journal (online) this morning, “The Beltway Boys.”  The quick take:

Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain’s veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.

OK. I’m over it. And now I get to try to make the headline work.

Next week I’m going to be in Washington for the Corporate Voices’ annual meeting and for an event we are hosting to honor members of Congress for their support of legislation and polices that help to improve the lives of working families. I’ll share some of the information and talks from the meeting — which features experts in education, public policy and legislation and corporate social responsibility.

But what I am really looking forward to is the addition of Allison Tomei to the staff of Corporate Voices for Working Families. Allison is a recent PRKent grad — and she will be coordinating communications and government relations. One of her first duties. Possibly helping to manage the national news media if Joe Biden shows up for breakfast next week.

Allison’s relocating to Washington from her home in Pittsburgh. That’s good. It extends the reach of PR Kent “inside-the-Beltway.” It also extends the reach of the Steeler Nation.

Hey, we have to do everything we can to get this country back on track.

Ethics, pregnancy and working moms

There’s something that just doesn’t sit right with me about the coverage of the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter. Clearly we are moving quickly toward a more personal — call it tabloid — form of journalism in this country. And I don’t see anything wrong with that. The “he said/she said” form of objective reporting is broken and represents a losing business model. But I hope we are not also losing the standards of good taste and ethical conduct.

Plenty has been written and broadcast about this story. I won’t rehash the details. Palin and the McCain campaign disclosed yesterday that the governor’s teenage daughter is pregnant and plans to marry the father and have the baby. Oh, boy. That hit the airwaves with about the same force as Gustav moving through the Gulf Coast — and the story got legs after posts on the Daily Kos, a liberal blog.

Howard Kurtz has an excellent story about this in The Washington Post today, “A Blogger, a Baby, a Cry of Concern.” Here’s from the story:

It is hardly unusual for a teenage girl to become pregnant, and unless she is Jamie Lynn Spears, who sold her baby pictures to OK! magazine, the news value is minimal. But some media commentators say Palin is fair game, not just because she is running for national office but because she is a self-described “hockey mom” who told the nation that her eldest son is headed to Iraq.

“Once she’s brought her children in as selling points, unfortunately the bad comes in with the good,” says Lisa Bloom, a Court TV anchor. “She’s integrating her mom quality as a key part of her résumé. We didn’t do that in the press; she did that.”

Give me a break. I believe the story about Palin and her daughter is news. But it doesn’t warrant the firestorm it created — especially with the talking-head pundits on TV. Slice and dice Sarah Palin’s record and views on abortion, family values, whatever, all you want. But this is essentially a family matter involving a teenage girl (and boy) who is not a public figure. If we start holding candidates responsible for the actions of their children, we won’t elect anyone in this country.

Barack Obama had it right when he said during a news conference yesterday that families are off limits. Period.

And yet CNN went right from that report to a reporter in Alaska who talked for several minutes about — well, you know. Sarah Palin’s daughter. Good grief.

Then this morning I catch up on the musings highlighted on The Huffington Post. Yep. Sarah Palin’s daughter front and center. And get this. The Huffington pundits have a photo and story about the teenage boy, soon to be married and a father, apparently. And Huffington took the info from his MySpace page.

Objectivity — no, not really.

Good taste — no.

Ethical conduct — no.

And journalists used to look down on public relations people. Hehehe.