There was no news in the Dan Rather piece. They didn't say [to Bush]: "We found a piece of paper that was overlooked in the 300,000 pieces of paper that were covered in the Iran-Contra hearings, and we have a piece of news we'd like to ask you about." CBS decided to create a media event and cover it in its own fashion. This was unprecedented in American history. CBS cancelled two-thirds of the newscast... to get a guy and take him out.

You've got to attract interest in your candidate. The problem when you're running far behind is that you've got to move through those positive phases very quickly. Then, you have to draw attention to the other guy. You've got to create interest in why you differ from him and you've got to create a desire to remove him.

In the Rather/Bush incident, it was totally unfair. CBS was trying him and convicting him and trying to execute him on national television. They had made up their minds. CBS made the fatal error of trying to become the political opposition to George Bush. And, when they did that, they put themselves in an arena where they can get knocked on their fanny.

I can't stand cruel people. And if I see people doing something mean to somebody else just to make themselves feel important, it really gets me mad.

If you have a choice between qualifications and personal qualities when it comes to hiring people, go with personal qualities. You can teach them the job.

Taking on the media is something I would never tell a candidate to do. I'd advise him what I would do in that circumstance, but that's about it.

Candidates rarely win battles with the media, and unless you really know what you're doing you should not tangle with them. The exception is when you know this is a search-and- destroy mission on the part of the media and your case is very strong, you are very articulate, you know what you're trying to accomplish - and you have no alternatives.