Just because someone thinks he is being attacked by the media doesn't mean he is. Many times the media actually is being fair, and they're attacking for good reason.

If you want to get unpaid media coverage, you had better be quotable. It's an interesting problem, because very few candidates are quotable.

I only understand friendship or scorched earth.

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.

It also has to do with how you look and how you sound. If you look like a mean SOB who's putting the other person down, that's different than if you're inquiring about the process they go through to make a decision on behalf of the public.

Take the [1980] Jimmy Carter-Ronald Reagan debate. Carter kept trying to imply that somehow Ronald Reagan was going to push the button, or was irresponsible with nuclear war. You might have been able to make the case that Carter was responsible. But it's very tough when you see a person with Reagan's nice-guy persona up there to believe this guy somehow wants nuclear war, that he somehow wants to antagonize the Russians into an attack. It's just not credible; it doesn't cut with what all your other senses are telling you.

In general, I think man-on-the- street ads and endorsement spots are having less and less effect on people. The electorate's getting very sophisticated, and they want to make their own judgments.