First, don't let your opposition scare you. I assure you, the more seriously you take your opponent, the more seriously everyone else will take him. This is why I take every opportunity to publicly guffaw in the face of Conservative Party Leader William Hague. This just reassures the public that indeed, the smarter man is running the government. It also makes Hague seem like a laughable little insect, instead of a rather devastating parliamentarian.

It doesn't sound like this will be hard to do in your case. George W. appears to all outside observers to be nothing more than an airhead son of privilege. Where did he get his "elite" education? Yale? Never heard of it. Despite the apparent vulnerability of George Jr. I hear you have some personal stumbling blocks. Let me suggest, if you have problems laughing naturally, practice in front of the mirror. In order to adopt the proper tone of voice, try slowing down your words (creating the impression Georgie is too slow to understand), lengthen your A's and strengthen your consonants. Most importantly, roll your eyes at the mention of his latest proposals. Accomplish in a simple gesture what you will then spend a few choice words on as you nail the lid on his coffin.

Speaking of words, when talking about Bush Minor, I suggest using words like "pathetic," "pitiful" and "puerile." If those don't strike a cord with the public, try "irresponsible," "irritating" and "immature." I guarantee this will boost your alpha male quotient as well as your ego.

I know that people have been concerned with your focus on attacking Bush instead of laying a foundation of ideas for your campaign. But remember, to dismiss the other candidate as an intellectual lightweight is not an attack. It's a dismissal. And the sooner you get Bush out of the spotlight with an aristocratic wave of your hand (come on, we both know it's in the blood) the sooner you can get the voters to start focusing on your issues, like the environment or the Internet or whatever (Just a tip: People are generally more concerned about things like the price of oil and pensioners).

Speaking of focusing on the positive, remember, it's your government that's in power. I know you want to avoid Clinton fatigue, but frankly, forget about it. The fact is, voters are enjoying the economic boom that has taken place in the last eight years. Ask them (as Reagan did in '80 and '84) are they better off now than they were four years ago? Do they want continued prosperity which can fund greater social services, or do they want massive tax cuts for the same few hundred impossibly wealthy Americans who would have benefited from the estate tax repeal? Your voters want wider health care coverage, certain social security and safety from crime. They don't particularly want the rich (look directly at Bush when you say this) to keep getting richer, while the poor get poorer. Talk about bringing the fruits of economic success to everyone's table.

Stay away from Clinton-esque scandal, but exploit his record. The last eight years haven't been all Lewinsky, you know. There's a legacy of Democratic success to build on.

Which brings me to the "New Democrat" side of things. You may have heard that I've abandoned the "New Labour" brand for the traditional idealism of plain-old Labour. I'm hoping to capture the sense of integrity that Bradley and Nader get from identifying with old-fashioned liberalism. And if there's anything you and I could do with a healthy dose of in the public eye, it's integrity. You have your shady fundraising, I have my spin-doctors on the public payroll. What we both need is an aura of idealism that a return to traditional liberal values can provide.