Bobby, Bobby, Bobby (Jindal, that is).  Now what?  You've just given the worst speech of your political career and sent your presidential prospects plummeting faster than Lehman Brothers over a September weekend.

Perhaps you can take solace in the fact that Bill Clinton had a similar experience.  Remember the 1988 Democratic National Convention?  Michael Dukakis chose Clinton to give his nominating speech—an enormous honor for a smart, high-potential, relative unknown on the national stage.  Sound familiar?  Unfortunately, young Bill laid an egg of monumental proportion.  Sound even more familiar?  Clinton was nearly booed off the stage.  The pundits labeled his effort the most boring convention speech of all time.  In the blink of an eye, a shooting star burned up in the atmosphere of big time politics.

So, how did he get elected President four short years later?

Fortuitously, he had the wisdom and good fortune to appear on Johnny Carson within a week of the convention debacle.  On the show, Clinton displayed a self-deprecating sense of humor about his already legendarily bad performance—saying, among other things, that it was all calculated to make Dukakis look good.  Johnny and the public ate it up.  The deal was sealed when Clinton got up and played the saxophone.  In a matter of a week, we had witnessed an abrupt political death, and an equally sudden resurrection.  Amazing.

Can Jindal have a similar revival?  Possibly, but it will be challenging.  Jindal's speech, I believe, was more damaging than Clinton's was in 1988.  Whereas Clinton was merely boring, Jindal came across as amateurish and not-ready-for-primetime.  A Carson-like moment may not be enough.  He needs to re-establish his bona fides.  Louisianians understand he's a man of substance, but others, due to his rebuttal performance, do not.  Fortunately for him and his supporters, he does have plenty of time to mature and recover.  Although he does not possess Clinton's charisma, he has connected with the people of Louisiana.  He has to find a way to make that translate nationally.

Jindal does share many of Clinton's positive characteristics—he's smart, highly-educated, from an interesting background, well-versed on policy, and full of ideas.  His success, however, will hinge on a capacity to present those ideas in an interesting fashion.  That does not mean abandoning the core tenants of Republicanism—limited government, strong defense, and values.  It does mean communicating them in a manner that is meaningful to Independents, moderates, and younger voters.

There's no doubt that the events of the next four and possibly eight years will require the message to be tweaked around the margins.  If Obama's head first dive into the Big Government pool yields unequivocally positive results, then it may very well be back to the drawing board for the GOP.  For the sake of the country, let's all hope Obama's right.  Unfortunately, there's that long and pesky economic history which indicates otherwise.  If Obama's policies don't work, or if the results are ambiguous, Jindal and the Republicans will have room to maneuver.

My sense is that the Republican case, beyond core principles, will need to focus on personal freedom.  If we stay on the present path, the government is going to play an increasingly intrusive role in our lives.  Though it may be fine initially as people mistakenly think they are getting something for nothing; over time, many, particularly those who are aspirational (including the young), will rethink the non-trivial loss of control they are likely to have over their lives.

Jindal and the GOP must tap into that uniquely American spirit of independence—the notion that every person, through hard work, and industry, can control his or her own destiny.  They need to reinvigorate our entrepreneurial character, and belief that the best way to improve our lot as a nation is to expand the size of the pie.  We all benefit, especially the less fortunate, when the economy is growing and vibrant.  Prosperity is not, as many on the Democrat side of the isle seem to believe, a zero sum game.  There is an inextricable link between the well-off and the not so.  Jobs, as we are experiencing every day, do not get created out of thin air.  Healthy, adequately capitalized businesses, big and small, coupled with an educated, motivated, and properly incented workforce, produce those jobs. 

Personal responsibility, not dependence on government, the Republicans must convince, is an enabler of freedom.  We can do more to lift up the weakest if we avoid creating a culture that cultivates dependence, saps ambition, and devalues effort and risk-taking.  There is no shortage of historical examples from which the Republicans can draw.

So, pick your chin up, Bobby; it's not over for you, but you're going to have to be that much better from here on out in order to make a difference.

It won't be easy, but it's doable.