The long form

Whether Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd or Richardson wins the Democratic nomination, one thing is certain: The candidate will not hire me to function as a campaign adviser or advertising director. True, I have worked in advertising for much of my life, but never on a political campaign. If the Democratic nominee did ask for my thoughts, however, I would offer one key piece of advice:

Go long.

For decades, the thirty-second television commercial has been the heartbeat of all major political campaigns. 'Twas not always always thus.

When George McGovern ran in 1972, he blew the ad budget on a series of 30-minute "fireside chats" with the nation, broadcast over one of the major networks -- ABC, I think -- in prime time. Visually, these lectures consisted of one long, dull close-up of the Giant Talking Head of McGovern. (If I recall correctly, the Head mentioned Watergate only in the last episode.) The Giant Talking Head of McGovern was the only thing standing between Dick Nixon and a second term, and we all know what happened. McGovern hoped to "turn on" the youth vote, but how many people under 40 were willing to sit still for a Giant Talking Head?

Well, yeah, me, but I was a hopeless nerdling.

Ever since the McGovern disaster, political consultants an candidates have viewed the long form as poisonous. With one exception: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan used the 30-minute format to address voters at the beginning of his 1976 run against Ford. He delivered a variant of The Speech (the one he'd been reciting for years) while ambling through his spacious living room. He did another, similar 30-minute speech just before the 1980 general election.

Although the long form worked pretty well for Reagan on those occasions, he did not resurrect that approach in 1984, and no other American candidate has given this format a try. Instead, political debate has become a battle of the soundbites. Even the formal debates have rarely allowed the candidates to develop a complex argument.

The time has come for a resurrection of the long form. A modified revival, in which the candidate is not a speechmaker, not a Giant Talking Head -- rather, he will be the host of a documentary. An informal lecture with interesting (but not overly jazzy) visuals. And humor.

Think An Inconvenient Truth. Think six or seven Inconvenient Truths throughout the course of a campaign.

Why bring back the long form?

First reason: This approach will now have the shock of the new. Most of today's voters have never seen a politician speak with the electorate on this level. The first candidate to try this approach will immediately be perceived as having more gravitas than does his opponent.

Second reason: The approach will put the emphasis on the issues. Not on the candidate's personality. Not on his (or her) family. Not on the political horserace. Not on style. Not on irrelevant or misleading wedge issues.

Third reason: People have learned to like documentaries.

Fourth reason: New methods of distribution have opened up. The morning after a candidate's lecture/film appears on television, it will also be available for download on the internet.

As I said, the revived long form should be modified. We can't have any more Giant Talking Heads. No more Reaganesque ambles through the living room. Here are some new rules:

Rule 1. Heavily advertise the premiere showing of the first film. Teaser ads. Banner ads on popular web sites such as Slate. The ads should not prominently feature the candidate -- instead, the emphasis should be on the controversial issue addressed by the candidate. And on humor. A dark and edgy Michael Moore-ish humor.

Rule 2. Don't pay any network a lot of money for that premier showing. It doesn't much matter where or when the piece has its initial broadcast. The History Channel, HBO, the Discovery Channel -- it's all good.

Rule 3. Place the film on YouTube and Google Video soon after the first broadcast.

Rule 4. Then put the film in heavy rotation in the late-night spots usually given over to infomercials. Capitalize on word of mouth. An average not-very-political Working Slob may have heard the film discussed around the office coffee-maker -- and suddenly there it is on channel 231 at 2:00 a.m. (presuming all that caffeine has prevented sleep).

Rule 5. Repeat the process with a new film.

Rule 6. Forget this nonsense about the need to establish the candidate as someone with whom voters would like to have a beer. The candidate should not use this film as an opportunity to talk about himself or his family or how much he likes to hunt and fish and go to church just like a Regular Joe. The candidate should concentrate on an issue, one issue per film.

The message of the teaser ads should not be: "Tune in tonight to hear Democratic candidate John Edwards sell himself." (Let us presume that Edwards is the nominee.) Only people who already like Edwards would watch such a broadcast. Rather, the message should be something along these lines: "Will alternative energy sources save you money? Save your job? Save the American economy? Here's a radical new approach." Folks won't know until they tune in that John Edwards will be your host for the evening.

Democrats can win if they frame the issues, if they can keep the national focus on substantial matters and not on piffle. The strategy I've suggested will accomplish that goal.