Fighting with the media almost always is a mistake. You can't win the argument, the media has the last word, and most times your argument is not justified.

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.

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.

Anybody's position on an issue, anything they've said about an issue, and any way they've voted on an issue is fair game. You have every right to question that and go after it aggressively.

I've found increasingly less effectiveness with the man-on-the street type of stuff that was very standard fare for years. It can still be effective, but it's got to be done well.

Show me a man or woman with a mission, and I'll show you somebody that's tougher to beat.

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.