So for example: Bush said he'd 'git Osama bin Laden; smoke 'im outta his hole.' Where is he?

Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Where are they?

Bush said (or Cheney did anyway) that Iraq would welcome us as liberators. Is that why we're being shot at and blown up? Mission accomplished, etc.

Kerry's campaign has been mediocre at best at branding their man and his mission/values/message. If they had done this better, Kerry would still be ahead in the polls.

A trustworthy brand doesn’t have to lie to get consumers to buy into it. If I buy a laundry detergent that claims it will clean my clothes without making my clothes dull and dingy, I expect it to clean my clothes and leave them as bright as the day I bought them.

President Bush has the substance/record of kept brand promises, and consistency of character, regardless of whether you are in the market for his product or not. Sen. Kerry on the other hand feels more like 'Honest Al's Used cars', saying whatever is needed to make the sale, completely audience based positions.

Each brand (candidate) is selling a different product. The question, as I understood it, isn't which product you prefer, but rather, which brand has done a better job of conveying it's brand message.

If you think of the first presidential debate as an opportunity for 'free samples,' Kerry tasted fresh and exotic; Bush tasted like conventional down-home cooking.

However, when it comes to brand 'promise' and 'delivery', I feel fully informed and can only chime in with those who have already pointed out the discrepancies that plague the Bush camp. If Kerry is capable of delivering on his 'brand promise' is something that we may or may not be able to find out.

As for our two poorly branded candidates, both are making critical brand mistakes. Kerry flounders in his own positions constantly. Even the democratic media pundits are having a hard time following him -- just imagine what the average voter thinks of Kerry and what he stands for as a brand. Most of them have no clue. In fact, this continual changing of positions has branded him a 'flip-flopper.' Now, that's something that resonates with the general public.

As for Bush, he has been single-minded in his branding position. That’s fine as long as it is seen as a real value to the consumer or voter. However, there seems to be a growing uneasiness towards his positioning in regards to not 'updating his brand strategy' in the wake of the 9/11 Report. People are becoming weary of the war, and it's evident we didn't know what we thought we knew. However, Bush refuses to revise his 'brand' message about how to tackle the next four years. This is apparent with the economy, too. Job creation is at a 70 year low for a sitting president, yet Bush hasn't changed his message on how to solve this problem.

With Kerry twisting in the wind and Bush with his head in the sand, I'd say the American voter has two lackluster brands to choose from this November.

Political beliefs and voting record aside, 'W' has certainly done the better job in branding. I've followed both Kerry's and W's agendas closely since the onset of thier respective campaigns. I've also paid close attention to their 'brand' (go ahead, call me a Brand Nerd -- I'm okay with that). To this date, I still have trouble following what exactly it is that Kerry/Edwards offers. W on the otherhand, is the exact opposite. You know what you're going to get -- even if it is 'off the chin.' The mere fact that he's affectionately referred to as 'W' should be enough to prove his personal brand value.

And to think, Kerry has the world's #1 condiment in his back pocket. The classic case of not understanding Marketing 101.

The whole debate on Iraq has been reduced to 'Bush lied' and 'there were no WMD's.' Yet anyone who goes beyond the headlines will sooner or later discover, that it's just not true. The recent Duelfer report has been presented to the public as proof positive that there were no WMD's. The mainstream media failed to report that, e.g. 'Starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001, [Hussein] developed a giant smuggling operation [and] worked [...] to procure illicit goods, services and technologies for Iraq's WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. [...] From late 2000 until the start of the U.S. invasion last year, the Iraqi Intelligence Service set up front companies to buy prohibited arms from a Syrian totaling $1.2 billion. It was all against UN resolution and constituted a cassus belli. Yet the 'tagline' -- 'Bush lied' -- is so overpowering that facts matter no more. And that's the power of branding.

On a shelf of two brands his product was chosen fewer times (Gore was more popular) in the last purchasing routine, but the purchasers were a more targeted, and powerful demographic (electoral college). This does not mean his brand is stronger, merely a higher 'prestige' item, if you like -- which is completely consistent with his brand image.

Kerry is the 'other leading' brand. His sole position is chop down the competition and in the process show his brand attributes as preferred substitutes. In essence, taking all the qualities of the leading brand and replacing only the ones 'consumers' are likely dissatisfied with. Kerry is a cunning and multi-faceted competitor ... like any up-and-coming brand he is telling consumers what the problem is with their current product and why he is the better decision for the next purchase.

It is not and SHOULD not be Kerry's job to re-explain the market and its dynamics ... Burger King didn't have to re-iterate that its food was 'fast' too ... just that decisions were made based on taste and that flame broiling tasted better than frying.

President Bush has done a good job on POSITIONING himself as the terrorist fighter, however, he has not been able to claim the strategic high ground on jobs, the economy, and the deficit.

Bush could be associated with Ford, Texaco, Levis, Dell, and ironically, Heinz. These are classic, strong, American brands with a take-no-prisoners style. They are not necessarily the smartest or most attractive brands in their categories, but they get the job done.

Kerry seems to be more like a BMW, BP, Ralph Lauren, Apple, and Grey Poupon.

What is most interesting about these candidates is that while the brands we relate with Kerry's thinking and style are high end and exclusive, he attempts to act in favor of the middle class. Bush, whose brands are all American and middle class, appeals to the richest one percent in America.

Also, and beyond the difference between 'heart vs. mind', Kerry is the only candidate who has sought, even though timidly, to reach a target audience beyond his traditional base.

Bush is like Levi's, Coke and Chevy... Always authentic w/ no BS... I identify w/ W at a softball game in Ohio more then John Kerry on a windsurfer in some Nantucket / Cape Cod enclave...