as exploiting the "stature gap" between the candidates. You can be darn sure that the Republicans won't be using the term "Microsoft executive" when referring to Burner. In my opinion they're ready to start using title deflation (calling her, say, "Project Manager" rather than "Group Product Manager" or anything with "senior" in the title.) It is an interesting distraction tactic that may be effective, especially since any response by Burner could be spun as showing her inexperience. Essentially, Reichert can use this as a PR opp and grandly change his manner of addressing burner to "Senior Manager" (or whatever would be proper) while casually mentioning that in his 30 years of service and Congressional term he had never earned that lofty title.

My advice to Burner's team on this diversion tactic would be to take the power out of the stature gap by pushing two different angles. First, own the stature gap. Rather than try to defend the Microsoft management period (which I must admit they've not tried to do as of yet) the team should focus on strengthening the connection to the populace. Burner has an engaging personality, is fun to talk with, is a mother, military brat, and an ex-Microsoftie. Every one of these qualities gives her an advantage over Reichert. Every one of these is a connection to a voter - and none of them can easily be twisted to alienate other segments. Burner is of the people - and this connection has been proven by her ability to out-raise her opponent in recent months.

The second tactic I would advise would be to show the downside of the stature gap for Reichert. Sure, Reichert is in an impressive leadership position, but what has he done with it? He provided no help prior to the Katrina debacle, but was thoughtful enough to issue a Press Release in which he blames "leadership" and claimed that he's always been pushing for better communication between law enforcement, emergency services, and the government. My question would be this: "Why, in your 30 years of public service, didn't you get anything done about this other than talk?" Reichert has been very good about calling for hearings, but hasn't made any real change - and those changes that he has suggested have tended to lean towards reductions in civil liberties (including preventing us from carrying mini-screwdrivers and safety scissors on planes.)

Contrary to Bevan's opinion, I see that Reichert remains vulnerable to anyone with a solid message. Burner is becoming just that - a candidate that knows how to play the game and knows what her constituents want.

So - getting back to the title... how has Bevan described Burner's Reichert-branding effort? He points to Burner's attempt to brand Reichert as a Bush rubber stamp... and that's it.

A couple thoughts here again. First, I don't see how being a rubber stamp for a president that one admires (and it is obvious that he does admire Bush/Cheney - given the recent visit) is a bad thing. And second, I think that there are far more damaging and effective ways that Burner has already begun using the branding iron. Sure, Bush isn't the most popular guy right now, but if Burner really wanted to link Reichert to a guy with a negative publicity rating she'd head in this direction:

Dave Reichert Dave Reichert has taken $20,000 from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. No surprise that Reichert voted with Tom DeLay 97% of the time between Jan. 3 2005 and March 31 2005.

Dave Reichert voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.

When Republicans realized it was "impossible to win the communications battle" over the gutted ethics rules, Reichert flip-flopped and voted to put the old rules back into place.

When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, Dave Reichert voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.

I think a few comments have already been made (though I think it was in the blogosphere, and not by candidate Burner) on this, but it'll probably come up again.

Here's why it could work. If Reichert brands himself as a guy who is for family values and national security, but then votes to change the rules to let an indicted felon to keep his job in Congress (and continue to have access to national security documents) this would seem to negate his ability to claim that he's to be trusted on national security issues. Regardless of what political message Reichert was initially trying to send, it should never have entered his mind that a felon should have access or influence in his office. The money he accepted ($20,000 from DeLay) paints an even bleaker picture.

And that is a branding iron that would hurt.

(Not saying it should be used, but knowing it is there should slow Reichert's negative branding efforts.)

Tate Linden Principal Consultant Stokefire Consulting Group 703-778-9925