Note to Hillary: There’s no ‘I’ in team

Greg Schneiders’ most excellent opinion piece in PR Week answered a question I’ve been wrestling withHillary
for some time: why do I overwhelmingly prefer Obama to Hillary?

As Schneider points out, Hillary’s speeches routinely employ the first person (‘I did this. I did that. I will do this. I will do that’). Obama, on the other hand, is a third person advocate (‘We will do this. We CAN do that together,’ etc.).

Hillary is iconoclastic, idiosyncratic and isolated. Obama seems warm, engaging and collegial by comparison. Coming on the heels of a disastrous administration whose leader was a sheltered, self-centered president who either dismissed criticism or questioned critics’ patriotism, Obama really does seem like a much needed breath of fresh air.

I’ve always been a fan of the ‘we’ word and recoil in disgust on the rare occasions when Peppercom employees opt for first person self aggrandizement in client or prospect meetings. Success, whether it be in business or politics, is a group activity. My best guess is that Schneiders is dead on. Hillary is all about Hillary, and Obama is all about the average American.

There’s no ‘I’ in team, either on Pennsylvania or Madison Avenues. And, that’s why ‘Hill’ will remain on Capitol Hill and not be back in the White House with Bill and Chelsea in tow.

7 thoughts on “Note to Hillary: There’s no ‘I’ in team

  1. What? No courts-martial hearing or due process for me?
    I think you should you post a photo of you in full naval regalia, sir. You might get more respect!

  2. CPO Kasko, consider yourself demoted. You’re now Seaman First Class Kasko. Next time I see you I’ll have you walk the plank.

  3. Ed: Excellent point! I’m with you on that $100 bet, if Steve would like to take it. As much as I hate the Iraq war situation, what are we supposed to do, cut and run? As a military man, Adm. Cody knows better.
    BTW, I like your blog — and that svelte picture of you being measured in a suit. In fact, I think I like it more than the pic. of Steve in the shades!

  4. If that’s the case, Edward, why has McCain gone on so many ‘Meet the press’ type programs since the ill-fated invasion to say that we’ve never sent enough troops to get the job done? His website may contain some revisionist history, but the guy’s been talking for years about ‘more, not less.’ As for Hill and Obama, I’ll take that bet.

  5. I am not necessarily a McCain follower, but this misconception that he wants to increase our presence in Iraq needs to stop.
    He clarified his “another 100 years in Iraq” statement a while back. The senator does believe we will have some presence there long term, but he hopes to start pulling troops out in the near term as well. He’s stated that numerous times. The problem is that no one actually reads the fine print…only the superficial sound bytes.
    BTW, I’ll bet 100 bucks that neither Hill nor Obama will actually remove troops there in the next year if elected president.

  6. I admire McCain, but he’s a one issue candidate. And, he’s wrong about the one issue. He not only wants to stay in Iraq, he wants to increase our presence there. Americans want change and change will propel Hill or ‘Barry’ as he called himself in high school into the oval office.

  7. Adm. Cody:
    I always chuckle when I read an official pronouncement issued by the Pope or some European monarch and they use the term “we” as in “We therefore rule that…” In business, it should be the same way.
    Unfortunately, with politicians, it’s always about ME, MYSELF or I all the time. Using some of my old PepperCom media training knowledge, I try to steer candidates I’ve worked with away from that. That’s what makes Obama so refreshing — you are quite right.
    Alas, he gives a great speech and truly motivates people. Great. But what does he stand for? What real experience does he have to be Commander-in-Chief? He’s better than Hillary, for sure, but how about McCain for President??
    CPO Kasko