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.

Obama's the one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn't public money. How many fund-raisers does he attend every week? How often does he play basketball and golf? I wish I had that kind of time.

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.

They [candidates] say, "I don't want to say anything controversial." And so nobody covers them. Then they blame the journalists, saying "Why don't they write down what I said?" In congressional races, 90 percent of the time the answer is, "Because you are boring and you don't have anything that makes me interested in listening to you. Why the heck should somebody write it down? There's nothing here worth hearing."

I quit politics because I hated it.

You've got to find a difierent approach. You've got to create some interest in your language, in the words and pictures you create. If a candidate can't give a 10-minute speech and have reporters reaching for their pens in the first 90 seconds, he probably shouldn't be running.

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.