Friday, April 24, 2015

Branding and Rebranding a Presidential Candidate: the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Keywords or Terms: Branding; re-branding; Hillary Clinton; US Secretary of State; White House; Promoting existing awareness; Psyche of voters; Benghazi case; Nationalistic Argument; Executive Emails; Congressional Republicans; Domestic and Global Security; American Exceptionalism; Exercising Political Powers; Monday-morning quarterbacking; and, seven-steps of rebranding campaign message

Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for the US presidency. This is all so good for the generation of baby boomersespecially the fifty and sixty- something females, who experienced the era of burn the bra; and, have fervently looked forward to a day when an American female will occupy the White House’s oval office. It is not that Hillary’s second try at the race will prove any more infallible than her first; however, her probable chance this time around, while so promising, may still depend on the outcome of voters' perception of  disturbing accusations from the Republican Party: 1) the Benghazi Fiasco; and 2) the use of personal emails for official duties when serving as US Secretary of State. Not that there has been a failure; rather, that unlike other promising candidates in the 2016 field, she seems to be the one to beat. It will be wrong and probably irritating to assume that since she is the front runner, she stands a better chance than the remainder in the field, Democrats or Republican. Here comes the need for Rebranding of her campaign message(s), consequent to her initial effort in 2008; and subsequent to her service to the nation, as a US Secretary of State.

More important than an announcement of a candidacy for the highest office in the land – the media blitz, fund raising, press releases, twitting, campaign tours, early state visitations and leg walk surrounding getting a campaign off the ground – is the need for branding and or rebranding of the candidate’s aspiration, messages, promises and hope. This task is as much important as raising campaign funds, getting the message surrounding the candidature broadcasted, and offering voters, glimpses of policy options or proposals, that the ascendancy to the office of either Mr. or Mrs. President, will offer. Branding or rebranding offers the candidate an opportunity to project an image or logo that the voters can easily identify with and relate to, until the voting day in 2016, and probably, after the swearing into office. Branding and Rebranding are concepts used in marketing to move a product, person or concept, that have surreptitiously moved to every facet or spheres of our lives. While branding involves the overall design and promotion of a product, person, service or concept, rebranding involves repackaging of the image of a service, person, product or person. Either of these efforts are so germane to modern day political campaigns as the legitimacy of a candidacy itself in the gilded age of information dissemination.

You probably saw the “H” and subscript “T” logo flying on your monitor screen or newspaper to launch or relaunch the former US Secretary of State effort to clinch the big prize of American politics. The logo gave the urgency of a change, it revives the dynamism of the proposed candidacy; and in case of Ms. Clinton, offers the chance of repackaging an image and message of re-running for the White House. It furthermore paves the way for a reentry of initial policy options or proposals of the 2008 campaign, that were either shelved, unmet by current administration, or still rather dear or important to the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the topmost political position in the land.

Rebranding therefore in the case of 2016 Presidential Campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton, promotes both the existing awareness of her campaign message(s); and if effectively and consistently done, the opportunity for voters to indoubtedly embrace her position on policy issues and political rhetoric. Rebranding of Ms. Clinton’s political campaign may lead her campaign towards a future in the next eighteen months, converting hearts, souls and mind of the voter, to a political power driven by a larger number of voters, hitherto unexperienced in US Presidential Campaigns, especially among the female members of American population. Hillary Clinton may leap into the White House oval office, despite the hounding of Republicans of what may or may not have happened in Benghazi, on that unfortunate night, if her brand or rebrand, persists in the psychic of the voters, who are ready to give a female an opportunity to hold that cherished veto power of a presidency. The driving forces here, are effectiveness and consistency of deliverance of her brand from the campaign team, that the mention of her candidacy effectively symbolizes a brand of excellence of achievement that voters can identify with, put their support behind, and are ready to give a trial in the oval office.

No matter Congressional Republican’s machination to invite back the former US Secretary of State to give testimony on the umpteenth time regarding whatever happened, or did not happen at Benghazi, Libya, Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton must neither capitulate or surrender the allure of her meritorious service to the nation. National service is enviable and problematic occasionally, especially when you have no control over all the possible events surrounding your duties, in an executive position. Beyond heroic chauvinism to the more humdrum of the duties of a Secretary of State, the legitimacy of the argument of the impossibility of being able to predict actions of others in far away land or places, is suffice argument in testimony, in this case. Congressional Republicans are inoculated from answering multiple questions, in multiple times, regarding all the bills that were passed, which many of them have truthfully acknowledged, they probably knew very little about, or failed to familiarize themselves, because of the weight of the responsibility of their position; and the human frailty to admonish all errors associated with an office. Benghazi case, is yesterday’s news, today’s, is to explore ways of preventing a repeat of the unfortunate incident or event. To a much more nationalistic argument in testimony before congress, is the recognition of the frailty of human error, painful as it may, and spurning it to the advantage of a Presidential candidacy’s message on a national stage: “It will never happen or repeat itself under a President Hillary Clinton’s watch!”, pronto.

Moreover, the current effort at US State Department is already reflective of the experience of that night; and, the current implemented changes in all US foreign embassies and posts, must stand out as an example of a reflective leader, who learned from probably a painful mistake, because of the splintered nature of all the American Embassies across the globe; and, who is ready to move ahead. In the context of executive leadership, to continue to revisit an old wound or give priority to a belated effort, is creating an unnecessary rebellion against the obvious. American exceptionalism – a strong case of leadership of an effective former US Secretary of State, is an antithesis of intensified hullabaloo from Congressional Republicans regarding actions taken during her tenure.

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has an urgent need to nip the Congressional Republicans’ rebellion in the bud regarding the use of personal emails for executive duties as a US Secretary of State; and or, the issue of the Benghazi, Libya fiasco. She must not cede her position to the new generation of Congressional Republican extremists, whose goal is to stir fear in the hearts of the American voters, that a Presidency of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a recipe for disaster similar to Benghazi or hold ups, in an electronic emails. Many Congressional Republicans who feel the moral responsibility to question the audacity of the former US Secretary of State during her term in office, enjoy domestic security without having to dirty their hands or being in the fore-front of fighting global terrorism; a feat which Ms. Clinton, in collaboration with other Foreign World’s ministers have had to contend with. The brutal truth is that it is much easier to play Monday morning quarterback, than to actually play the game on the field.

Certainly, Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and former US Secretary of State has demonstrated in spirit the acknowledgment of possible errors in Benghazi, Libya. The extremists’ Congressional Republicans assume that Ms. Clinton, having demonstrated the ambition to seek the Office of the Presidency, ought to be hounded all over again. Having achieved merit and demonstrated leadership at US State Department, Republicans now view her run for the Presidency, as an affirmation of her positive credibility to dethrone any one of their impending flag bearer come 2016. While Ms. Clinton suffers the risk of a blow back for her Presidential Campaign if she doesn't fight back at any Congressional hearing, she also has the fortitude and likelihood of receiving tons of sympathy from Americans, if she is able to effectively communicate the risks of the new world order regarding global terrorism; and espouse her preparedness to take on any of the global terrorists, as she wields the power of a US presidency.

Similarly, Ms. Hillary Clinton’s effort in the State Department, has provided collective stability for both national defense and global security, considering the advice and support she provided current Obama’s administration to dethrone some depots in the Middle East during her era as US Secretary of State. Many European leaders, including the Russians, have explicitly acknowledged the brilliance of her service; and the messy aftermath of the Arab Spring, is a recognition that all was not well with some governments in the Middle East, that served with implicit support or corroboration of former America’s Presidential Administrations; and, there was an overdue need for change in leadership among some unrepentant despots of the region. Moreover, Ms. Hillary Clinton enjoy huge respect and recognition from many global leaders; and, would maintain many alliances that have bolstered global stability since her exit from the Office of US Secretary of State, if elected the first female President of the United States. While not over-zealously trying to impart a degree of precision of what is probable in a Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Presidency, it is safe to say that her experience as a Secretary of State will only serve the nation better, if she is the occupant of the oval office come 2016; at least better than what one can say for current slate of candidates aspiring for that office this time around.

Given that Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy for the US Presidency seems to be unwelcome by some radical Republicans in Congress, her campaign team must now remain in constant engagement with the American voters over the next eighteen months. The Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager’s task must include branding and re-branding of her campaign messages. With no exceptions, campaign messages fanned out must be engaging for her supporters; and, communication with them must be proactive. The undecided voters must be brought around, by complete interaction and immersion in the hope and promises of the first female President of the United States. Hiccups on the campaign trail must not be allowed to spun out of control; that is why, a very close knit shift and clamp down of any unauthorized message from the campaign, must be closely monitored. The unconfirmed or misguided campaign messages that have often torpedoed  other campaigns, must be closely scrutinized. The ‘haters’ or antagonists, those who are completely anti-Hillary Clinton’s candidacy may remain, but must not overtly be seen as lost causes. Thus, the practicality of adopting the seven stages of rebranding, to attempt to woo, even if only ten percent of this group of naysayers.

The precise architecture of the seven steps may take the following format: 1) Influence and shape Hillary Clinton’s campaign message with a series of practical policies and pragmatic programs that address the concerns of some in this group – ask for those characteristics and qualities in Hillary Clinton, that is a turn-off for these antagonists – ask if they may support some initiatives of the campaign and insist that they provide answers to what they want or expect of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential Candidate; 2) Obtain feedback from community contact groups that are doing leg walk on behalf of the campaign – phone calls, online surveys and email surveys of what the supporters are finding out during interactions with their neighbors and why some are holding back support for the Secretary’s candidacy, will be an eye-opener; 3) find out quickly what is not working with Candidate Clinton’s campaign messages – part of your effort is to connect to all voters, not necessarily your initially targeted group; change and reconfigure your message to connect to the emotions of the voters and brand your message to covet the favor of those hard to please; 4) Develop a story – let your campaign message tell a story about a female who has been close to power, asserted executive power and stood at the cross-road of history, when it was necessary to bring down one of America’s number one enemy – reflect not only on her work ethics, but also her motherly and grand motherly love; 5) explore and permeate the Hillary Clinton’s campaign message brand over multiple dissemination platforms, including word of mouth, emails, twitter account, social media, website, radio and television, 6) consistently pound your campaign message, advancing far-reaching initiative of bringing more supporters to carry over the promises of the Hillary Clinton brand; including adopting coherent campaign standard of wooing prospective supporters and building a bridge to the not so much supportive voters; and, 7) Be consistent and never second guess your efforts or the secretary’s intention, in offering some words in an impromptu interview, with some unknown media. Stay focused and determined to win the election.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton: “I’m running for President”

Keywords and Terms: Candidate Hillary Clinton; Presidential Campaigns; US Senate; Democratic Aspirant; Everyday American Champion; Senator Jim Webb; Governor Martin O’Malley; Senator Bernard Sanders; Champion for Everyday American; 36,000 retweet/half-hour; Iowa; New Hampshire; Nevada; South Carolina; Robby Mook; John D. Podesta; Male-Female Pay differential; Foreign Wars; Dodd-Franks; Dissembling Campaign Regime; Common Core Curriculum;
With those four words, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the only first lady ever elected to US Senate, announced this morning that she is running to become the next President of the United States. If any of the following possible Democratic contenders is listening, former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, and Senator Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont who could run as a Democrat, the die has been cast; and without an iota of doubt, we all know, Hillary is the candidate to beat in 2016. Forget the email scandal, ignore the alleged failure of Benghazi, Libya, and overlook the suspicion of foreign government or persons contribution to her family’s foundation, and you have an unbeatable front runner for Democratic Nomination as the party’s flag bearer.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably running not against any man or woman, but to advance the objective of middle income earners, those who have played by the rule or book; but have been unable to make ends meet. To paraphrase the Yale-trained lawyer and former US Secretary of State, she wants to be: “that champion for everyday American.” In a competitive world of pay differentials between males and females for the same duties and obligations, Hillary is probably running to help close the pay gap between the sexes among many other things. The wife of the forty-second President of the United States knows there are antagonists out there who would like the world to know of many sinister things about the Clinton clan; however, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is brushing all those aside and throwing in her cap for a competition that some political pundits predict may cost close to two and a half billion dollars.
For a candidate who mustered close to half a million likes in fifteen minutes on her campaign Facebook page after the announcement of her ambition, this is a candidate of many firsts. She is the first lady to ever win a Grammy Award; first candidate to have her announcement re-tweeted over 36,000 in half-hour on her preferred method or platform of communication; and, she is going to be the president who may overcome the current tit-for-tat acrimony in US Congress. Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton may be that candidate who could bring hope and reconciliation in an unmistakably challenging world environment where journalists are beheaded by extreme religious hooligans parading the world’s stage as revolutionary Islamist.
A little over two years ago, Hillary was jetting up and down the world stage, attempting to burnish the image of the US, while softening tensions between opponents in the Middle East and Africa. Many females across the globe, who had the opportunity of meeting Ms. Clinton as US Secretary of State, are probably looking up to this icon of the feminist movement meeting another milestone in women suffrage, running seriously and hopefully, if only faith and promises of hard campaigning are going to allow in the following eighteen months, a better chance to be enthroned the President of the greatest democracy on earth. Among the six females who had ever aspired to this office, including Jill Stein (2012); Linda Jennes (1972); Shirley Chisholm (1972); Gracie Allen (1940); and Victoria Woodhull (1872); Hillary Rodham Clinton stands out as probably the best prepared and most favorable to win it all come 2016. While her announcement this morning is playing out in many media platforms, her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, was probably working overdrive on the phones, calling potential supporters and well-wishers and associates to donate to this new cause; and, join former US Secretary Clinton on the journey to 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
Not sure of what probably lies ahead, her campaign manager is reported to be Robby Mook, a technological savvy and data driven campaign analytics, Secretary Clinton will have to make a good placing in the primary contests in the following early contest states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The frantic disposition that characterize announcement of a presidential run often bears a lot of pressure on a candidate; and, the announcement today by Secretary Clinton probably took the monkey off her back, especially with the insistent press speculations surrounding her prospect for running for the White House oval office in 2016. From here on, the Presidential Candidate must make sure that the presence of her husband on her campaign trail is limited enough, not to label her campaign with the aura of some personal failings that characterized the term of the 42nd President of the United State. If she is in it to win it all as she has announced, Secretary Clinton and her campaign team must reflect on the past conspiracy theories out there concerning the Clinton clan and machination, since those seem to be outstanding issues that may distract the message of the Secretary’s Presidential Campaign.
Back during the US Secretary of State term, the Clinton Foundation was construed as taking advantage of the secretary’s influence in raising fund overseas. This speculation, whether true or not, has the tendency of raising its ugly head during presidential road campaigns. As Secretary Clinton hits the road to earn American votes, opponents will unleash untrue campaign messages; the Clinton campaign team must not only work to protect her image, they must establish a connection with the middle class and expose them early to impending public policies under Hillary Clinton’s Administration, that will alleviate continued income inequality. She must answer the question, why the American voters should give her their votes. To sustain motion and momentum, the campaign team must expect universal attacks from Republicans and must work to sweat things out working actively to push back attacks from opponents that may draw back passion for her candidacy.
The foundation of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign for 2016 is somewhat Utopian, and there will be supporters drawn to its novelty – as long as there are some reasons to believe that the effort will lead to a woman rising and winning the office of the presidency– for that reason, the campaign team must work hard to make this group believe in the campaign messages and the candidate. Republican opponents may believe that these true believers may be dissuaded through misinformation or false campaign to undermine the Clinton’s Candidacy. There are realistic possibility of controlling information coming out of the campaign effort, especially, if the campaign manager is able to maintain a tight shift that will prevent leaks on the campaign’s strategy. The tight shift control of information leaks are essential to control loyalty and maintain momentum in how primaries are won, state by state, especially beginning with states with early primaries. What motivates a novelty as a female US Presidency or a utopian as some will say, is a burning desire by many Americans for a female occupant of the highest office in the land; the history of dearth of female in the office for the past two and half centuries has made some voters make an unbreakable bond with the announcement of Hillary Clinton for 2016. A reality for now, is that of all the prior female attempt to occupy the highest office in the land, Hillary Clinton stands out as probably the best chance, and for that reason, the rigor of controlling information leaks from her campaign, must be done with a vigor hitherto unknown in presidential campaigns; failure, may represent another fallacy which many female groups are no longer willing to live with.
The reliance on the facade that the Democratic presidential nomination for 2016 is at stark contrast from recent primaries, 2008 and 2004, must not hold back precautions on the part of Secretary Clinton’s campaign team. Careless information leaks have been known to undermine a few nominees that were considered front-runner status on the nomination path. It is good to hear the secretary say she is not taking anything for granted in her two-minute video released to announce her candidacy. Front runner status candidates who have succeeded in maintaining momentum behind their candidacy in the past cycles of the presidential nomination process, have often worked hard from releasing campaign snippet messages that are not polarizing or injurious to the chances of the candidate. All campaign messages must enrich the campaign experience for both the candidate and her supporters; the result invariably, is abundant donations to the campaign chest. Secretary Clinton’s campaign team must remain immutable.
Secretary Clinton’s campaign messages do not have to be excessively ideologically driven, as some Republican contenders are, or are going to be once interest groups decide to actualize their interest or flex their muzzles toward the nomination month, about a year from today. The hypocrisy of advancing the interest of self-interest groups seeking to ensure that the Party’s platform reflect their narrow view(s) has tendency to turn away potential and existing supporters. What these self-interest groups require, are recognition and a place on the table, not complete capitulation of the campaign team or message to their total interest. For that alone, diplomacy and care are essential and crucial in sustaining their support to the ultimate nomination day; and hopefully, the general election day. The sense and right to be heard are recognized for any group in the Democratic Party; however, not to the extent to which the Tea Party has hijacked the Republican Party’s establishment to set the tone of the party’s national agenda.

Precisely, because what we have seen of narrow ideological driven party campaign messages in recent years, the commanding doctrine of the first viable female presidential campaign in US history, do not necessarily have to be completely compatible with all the demands of the interest or pressure groups in the party; however, it must be aligned with the ultimate goal of why Secretary Clinton entered the presidential race in the first instance and hopefully, today. It is probably true that there are other reasons why the Secretary has entered the race, beyond what may be made public at this time; it is also true that, all the reasons for running for the office of the Presidency, is the desire to finish what she started in 2008. Doctrinal differences are bound to arise between a campaign team and the pressure or lobby groups within a party; however, while loyalty and respect are essential to the aspirations of the whole party and probable success at the general election, no campaign team must put itself in the position where an interest or lobby group, hijacks its main goal or the party’s national platform.

Certain realities are indisputable and Presidential Candidate Clinton must articulate these in her 2016 campaign messages. She must also find means of communicating her position on them without necessarily ruffling the features of too many, beginning with Democrats; and then, the total American voters:
1)      Commitment to alleviating pay differentials between males and females in the country, a challenge that has troubled many female groups in America, must not be abandoned. The political tenet or acceptance of income inequality between the sexes has been eroded among the American voters, and there must be a way to make it permanent in all sectors of American Economy. This goal is essentially pertinent to the rise of the first female President of the United States; and, is a message many groups in the nation, Democrats and Republicans, are ready to buy into if not already done. The observation is that this idea is one many have subscribed to for ages; however, opposition groups have been able to maintain the status-quo, because implementation of existing laws has been hap-hazard so far, in both the private and public sectors of the economy.

2)     Foreign wars will only be proclaimed with a higher threshold of justification, we must first determine who we are going to war with, what is our early exit plans, and for what purposes; and, we must never again go to war because of a mistake. We must never push or military men and families to the brink, a practice we have subconsciously pursued in the past four decades. The wars we have been in recently, Iraq and Afghanistan, have left the country divided, probably along party lines, Republicans versus Democrats; pro-war versus anti-war, and more.

3)     Impending changes in the financial sector, coupled with the implementation of Dodd-Franks, must not be negotiable, except if the change is to tighten the noose around the necks of culprits who brought the nation to its knees in 2008; and, are currently working hard to over-turn the controls that were put in place to put a check on the excesses of many banks and financial institutions, especially with those considered to be too big to fail.

4)     Dissembling of campaign regime through the Supreme Court ruling, striking down the limit on total amount of money wealthy donors can contribute and political committees’, which has been the norm since the post Nixon-Era, while considered inconsequential among some lobby groups and rich folks attempting to buy influence at the federal level, has become a huge dilemma for many Americans. American citizens are seeking clarification from Congress, or a much explicit legislation that bans this practice.

5)     The Common Core Curriculum, that has served as a fodder for argument, by those who are in support of standard and those opposed in K-12 education, needs a position paper from the Clinton’s campaign. The disarray across K-12 education in the nation because of imperfect or mis-information surrounding the Common Core Curriculum, has created a climate of paradox that has infused mistrust among many state education systems and the federal department of education.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Republican Contenders in 2016 White House Race: A strategy to win the hearts and souls of Voters!

Keywords or Terms: Republican Contenders; Rand Paul; John McCain; Jeb Bush; Marco Rubio; Scott Walker; Carly Fiorina; Rick Perry; Religious Freedom; Sexual Equality; Safety and Security of our Nation; Israel; Iran; Jordan; Saudi Arabia; Nuclear Weapons; Middle East; Hillary Clinton; and the New World Order

Yesterday, two Republican heavy weights declared their ambition to run for the White House or re-election to the US Senate. The strikingly heavy handed libertarian, Rand Paul, will like to become a US President and John McCain will like to be re-elected to a sixth term in US Senate. Both Republican candidates and a few more, are flawed for several reasons, among which is probably their role in signing a treacherous letter to Iranian leaders, enunciated by Tom Cotton, the senator holding brief for the State of Israel, if you ask, when it comes to stopping Iran from having nuclear capabilities. You've heard Jeb Bush, another Republican contender and probably the leading Republican in the race for the White House in 2016 saying, he cannot stand behind a flawed agreement. Rand Paul, John McCain, and Jeb Bush, like other Republican contenders, will now have to face Republican voters to make either of their dreams come through. Nothing can be taken for granted, not even the support for religious freedom against sexual equality; or, the unquestionable commitment to a disgruntled ally who often chooses to go her own way, outside reason on issues that affect, indirectly or directly, the safety and security of America.

Events of recent years tell us that Republican legislators have either boxed themselves to the corner with couple of missteps emanating from their “assumed” hatred for the 44th President of the United States, for whatever reason; or, their inability to understand the President’s political brinkmanship. Republican party leaders have made it difficult for Americans to understand the Party's current philosophy with the activism and insurgencies of Tea Party members. The far right Republicans’ misguided effort to paint Democrats as a tax and spend party and their own party as strong on defense by committing the nation into insistence foreign wars while surreptitiously cutting taxes for the rich, have complicated even further the understanding of the new Republican Party on many national issues. Many American progressives will like to believe Republicans can be reformed; that they can be made to understand that if Israel can choose to have a nuclear bomb, any other country in the world, must be given the benefit of doubt, on self determination, no matter how hard we may argue against their choice; or, past utterances regarding the future of any state. Mind you, no one is advocating a nuclear arms race here; however, will America go to bat for Israel, if it decides to bomb Jordan, Iran or Saudi Arabia? If America will not accommodate police brutality against minority groups within its borders, why should it accommodate a foreign state with a population close to that of the State of Illinois, continuing to foster discrimination and apartheid toward “minority” Arab group(s) within its population and across its borders.

It is probably safe to now articulate that an ally as bosom as the State of Israel, also has some short comings, including past misinformation regarding whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that led to Iraq war and cost lives of innocent Americans; and or Iraqis. Importantly, it is about time that congressional leaders comprehend that domestic politics is different from foreign politics; and, anytime, either of the major political parties attempt to draw foreign politics into domestic politics, the way Congressional Republican leaders had done recently with the invitation of Prime Minister Natanyahu of Israel, there are are bound to be some unintended consequences; and probably, misinterpretation of their intentions on both national and international stages. Whichever way anyone looks at it, however, it hardly savors well for the overall interest of America.

Disconcerting concerns of some well meaning Americans regarding how Congressional Republican leaders have conducted themselves during the term of the 44th President of the United States is now raising the issue of the volatility of the Republican Party brand among American voters. Some will like the party to swing back to its old mantra, full family values, limited government and unqualified fiscal responsibility. Others have sought a need for the party to change with the times, putting up and driving a national party’s platform that truly widens the tent, offering inclusiveness to some social causes that have remained barren on the national platform of the Republican Party and showing more latitudes in recognition of diversity, within and without America. Unceremoniously at the party level, many rank and file Republicans will like the field of 2016 White House contenders to quickly shape up or shrink, so the party can wholesomely work with a viable contender to the Democrat’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, or whoever the Democratic Party ends up choosing to carry its flag. For full disclosures, I am a die-hard Democrat who believes that a good competition between the two major political parties’ candidates brings out the best on a national stage; and, offers voters opportunity to choose a versatile and dynamic occupier of the White House's oval office.

The office of the President of the United States is not only important to the veracity of the interest of the multitudes constituting America; but also, has greater meaning or interpretations for the whole world, considering that the nation is the only super power left standing on the global stage. No longer can Americans see the choice of who to occupy the Presidency as limited to the interests of only 320 million Americans; many people across the globe now see the nation as a beacon of hope and her general elections' outcomes, an issue of international interest. That is why comments from Republican contenders regarding Iranian Nuclear Negotiations have become issues of concern for many in the international community who watch closely American general elections, especially the Presidential race, including: 1) “Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran rewards an enemy, undermines our allies and threatens our safety.” – Scott Walker; 2) “This attempt to spin diplomatic failure as a success is just the latest example of this administration’s farcical approach to Iran.” - Marco Rubio; 3) “Americans and our allies are right to be wary of a nuclear deal with Iran that is riddled with concessions by the Obama administration.” – Rick Perry; 4) “Iran’s behavior is not one of a potential ally or partner, we cannot trust them” - Carly Fiorina; and, 5) “These negotiations began, by President Obama’s own admission, as an effort to deny Iran nuclear capabilities, but instead will only legitimize those activities”- Jeb Bush. These are sampled comments regarding an outline of understanding to limit Iran’s ability to attain nuclear weapons, from Republicans aspiring to rise into the office of the President of the United States. It is not yet a comprehensive agreement as of date, and comments as these are flying all over the press. You wonder why these contenders have not shown restraint on an issue of negotiations, still ongoing. Do these contenders have the discipline to hold their judgement until an ultimate agreement? Are they actually for peace in the Middle-East; or, are they sold only to tentative understanding, already castigated by the leader of an eight million people Middle-Eastern nation, that constantly continues to insult America while at the same time begging for help to be protected against discrimination at the United Nations, while her leaders continue to promote an apartheid system within its boundary, as we speak.

The Office of the President of the United States today, isn't the same as what we had during the cold war. Times are changing and our leaders, or the choice of who to occupy the White House’s oval office, must change too. Without being charged of over-characterization or dramatization, the President of the United States today, is more like the President of the whole world; because every nation looks up to this nation to do the right thing in close to virtually everything across the globe. The World expects America to lead and it always does, except with few handicaps. Forget what many envious leaders across the globe may be saying about American Colonization fervor, despite the fact the nation, on record, has shown very little inclination when compared with other countries across the globe. Whenever things go aerie or afire across the globe, America is the nation that is called for help. This means a lot, far more than many can comprehend when it comes to addressing foreign or international issues and diplomacy as against domestic issues.

America today, needs not only an intelligent, diplomatic and seasoned leader, her voters must put in place a global leader, one who understands the intricacy of America’s interest vis-à-vis other nation’s, and at the same time, able to reconcile differences of opinions when it comes to fostering global stability and international peace. This is a herculean task; one that has not been chosen by America but by default has fallen on her laps; and must not be underestimated, while choosing our leader, or President of the United States. The rise of the Internet has opened the eyes, ears and probably nose of the world; and, many people across the globe probably know what is going on in everyone’s or country’s backyard. It is going and getting to become very difficult to cover up mis-deeds, misbehavior and tyranny in governance from poleteriate, either in a Presidency or Prime Minister's office. America has to take on the added responsibility that all nations and peoples of the world, are given a fair shake when it comes to diplomacy or understanding the political, economic and sociological variables defining all of us, and the globe. This is the task ahead of us, not a monologue or tweets from political aspirants or Republican office contenders that carry no relevance to the aspirations of Americans and peoples of the world.

For Republican contenders, no longer can you succumb to the experience of the 1920’s, where keywords as “rationalize,” “efficiency”, or “technocrat” that spoke to the heartlessness and cold-minded concerns that failed the industrialization of America; nor, the “Northern vs Southern presence” on the presidential ticket as shown fifty years latter, with the Mondale’s Campaign for the White House; neither can Republicans explore the “Gipper Strategy” of early 1980’s, accusing his opponent as holding a rally at the birthplace of the KKK, in Alabama, when in reality this never happened. Neither can Republicans default solely to using the “outside strategy – the Rudy Giuliani method;” or accusing Hillary Clinton as a member of President Obama’s team who got entangled in the Benghazi fiasco. All these strategies come with a pitfall and consequences best left to your imagination. America's presidential election has now become a world's presidential election, no matter how pundits refrain from seeing it likewise. If in doubt, talk to a seasoned diplomat at the US State Department and you'll get a better perspective of the argument here.

Further, criticizing the use of executive order by President Obama will not work either, since President Obama is no longer on the national ticket; and Hillary Clinton can easily convince any living American in the past six years that President Obama had his hands tied because of the recalcitrance of Congressional Republicans and their inability to appreciate diversity in America. Neither can Republicans rely on advancing a case as Lindsay Graham puts it: “Next President should pick up negotiations with Iran from where President Obama left off, because Iranians do not respect him.” George W. Bush’s Administration was darkened by the failures of mortgage derivatives, complete meltdown of the financial sector, extensive tax cuts for the rich, and the burden of unpaid foreign wars. Republican Party’s platform must shy away from keywords as “anti-Abortion,” “anti-feminism,” “anti-immigration,” “anti-sexual equality,” “tax-cuts and unregulated financial sector,” “gutting social security and medicare,” or, “anti-Obama-care”. References to these will only bemoan the people and create a wider gap between the Republican Party and the American voters. The horrors of the recent experience for Americans is still vivid, and any attempt to sell Americans snake oil will only backfire. Establishment Republicans and Party leadership must implore their prospective candidates to speak in private as if someone out there is recording with a cell phone or camera for a live audience. YouTube is full of many misguided private statements of Republican politicians that have been made public; it behooves the politicians to be circumspect of their utterances, no matter how minuscule.

An effective social media campaign impacting psychology of voters’ social behavior must become the blue-print of winning in an Information Age; just as your imaginary enemy, President Barack Obama, has proven in the last two cycles of elections. The new lingo is participatory democracy, where the power of technology in social media and internet are harnessed for the good of political messages. Instangram, Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler among other social media must be engineered into political message and campaigns. The nature of things to come, are only determined by the imaginative Party and a resourceful leader. The American voter is now a world’s voter. Change is here; and, politicians must change; for change is the only thing that is permanent.