Bill Clinton was effective because he had that personal relationship, that this was a guy who had tremendous curiosity, which is another one of the key attributes. And he had the ability - his mind was - his mind and his heart were very well-connected. And so he genuinely empathized.

It's something that people who read my materials have asked me in the past. If you don't have principles - the last chapter of the book ["Win"] is all about winning with principles. It's all about applying words to good things, good people, good efforts. Without that inherent accuracy, then even the best words will still fail.

The principles behind explaining and educating the product or the elected official is similar, even though the actual execution of it is very, very different.

If you just heard 90 percent of dentists recommend something, it's too statistical. Nine out of 10 says: Well, it's just virtually everyone. It leads you to think of that joke about the one dentist. But so much of communication.

I had nothing to do with death panels. I thought it was a horrible phrase about end of life. I didn't think it was accurate, and I was - I've always been opposed to it. The reason why I stood behind that phrase "death tax" for so many years is because the only time that you could pay that tax, the only time, is on the death of a relative. And that's what makes it a death tax. You have to be accurate.

Anything that causes you to doubt, to raise either objections or just concerns about it - and they always put the information right at the bottom of the screen so you can't really read it - every time you see a company do that, the ad becomes less effective. The communication becomes less effective.

There are about 50 or 60 recommendations [in "Win"] for how to communicate, not just the words themselves. All of them had to be tested. And in this short amount of time, it's just very time-consuming and very stressful to ensure that you get it right.