One reason I’m comfortable with supporting Obama is one that I imagine is going to be a stretch for many of you – because I believe he is likely to be the most competent candidate out there today.
I can say that because I really do view a modern Presidential campaign as a decent proxy for the strains and magnitude of actually being President. The difficult managerial task faced by a candidate is the coordination of lots of loosely-affiliated powerful individuals, delegating appropriately, and doing it all in the whirlwind of massive public attention.
Hillary – whose campaign theme was “I’m ready” clearly – wasn’t.Take a look at this TNR article – a list of damning quotes from campaign insiders:
“Hillary assembled a team thin on presidential campaign experience that confused discipline with insularity; they didn’t know what they didn’t know and were too arrogant to ask at a time early enough in the process when it could have made a difference, effectively shutting out even some long-time Hillaryland loyalists. Her innermost circle of [Patti Solis] Doyle, [Mark] Penn, [Mandy] Grunwald, [Neera] Tanden and [Howard] Wolfson formed a Board of Directors with no single Chairman or CEO; nobody was truly in charge, nobody held truly accountable.”
“[Original campaign manager] Patti and [her deputy] Mike [Henry] sat up there in their offices and no one knew what they did all day. Patti’s a nice person who was put in a job way over head. She was out of her element. Mike Henry was hired because he was the flavor of day, the catch everyone wanted. I’m sure he was really great, but presidential politics require a unique skill set and knowledge.”
“[Policy Director] Tanden and [Communications Director] Wolfson, the HQ’s most senior department heads, had no real presidential campaign experience, and no primary experience whatsoever. Notoriously bad managers, they filled key posts with newcomers loyal to them but unknown to and unfamiliar with the candidate, her style, her history, her preferences.”
“Probably our second biggest mistake was much more operational: Making our chief strategist our one and only pollster. It is impossible to disagree and have a counter view on message when the person creating the message is also the person testing the message.”
Ouch. It reminds me of the Newsweek article (can’t find it in their archive) on Kerry’s campaign…another reason I don’t for a moment regret not supporting him, in spite of the fact that he served in Vietnam.
And one thing that makes me comfortable with Obama is the simple fact that he’s assembled a staff loyal enough not to air his dirty laundry in public. Good for him, and good for them.
How do you feel about demonstrated executive competence as a test of fitness for the office of the presidency?
I ask, because that test produces different recommendations from yours. Measured by executive competence in office, Rudy Giuliani was a or the star pick for the presidency this time, while measured by his efficiency as a candidate he was a dunce.
So, you’re arguing that Obama would make a better president than McCain or Clinton because he’s running a better campaign.
I have a real problem with that argument (because it’s just so totally wrong) but let’s grant it for the moment.
Obama’s campaign has had plenty of problems, like Samantha Powers, and if staffers are “leak-proof” now it’s probably because they’re afraid of getting fired. And unfortunately he can’t fire Michelle Obama.
Hillary’s crummy campaign has not done so badly against Obama, either. In spite of defections, hostile progressives, the most biased media ever, and some out-right back-stabbing, she’s still standing.
McCain is not polling badly against Obama, either, in spite of the fact that he has spent only one third what Obama has. Does that mean that McCain could run the government for 70% less money?
In order for Obama to succeed as a president the same way he has succeeded as a candidate, we must assume that the world is standing by to strew roses in his path, and that when he goes to Tehran the Revolutionary fascists will swoon at his feet. Unfortunately, I think that’s pretty much what he expects.
Finally, Obama himself “refutes you:”:http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w
It certainly isn’t leadership, it’s the worst kind of college freshman – make that high school freshman – ignorant anti-American intellectual diaper-load there is, and you know it, friend. It quite wipes out any illusion of competence, unless this country can be run like the Berkeley City Council.
One reason I’m comfortable with supporting Obama is one that I imagine is going to be a stretch for many of you – because I believe he is likely to be the most competent candidate out there today.
…Yeah, that’s a stretch.
And one thing that makes me comfortable with Obama is the simple fact that he’s assembled a staff loyal enough not to air his dirty laundry in public. Good for him, and good for them.
Too bad his vast character judgement doesn’t extend as far as his family pastor and spiritual mentor, who really stuck a knife in him a few weeks ago.
And yes, I think this is a valid concern and not just a snarky little snipe. First if Obama hadn’t made such a big deal out of his willingness to negotiate with adversaries, I would pay that incident little mind.
And second, as it is, I see Obama playing up as a strength what I think is a weakness. That’s the worst kind of blind spot to have, and it certainly doesn’t give me any warm fuzzies about his overall competence.
Glen is right, and further Obama’s words (before 75,000 in Portland OR) speak to the modern problems of the Democratic Party (apologies to Chevy Chase).
Which is the resentment and hatred of the “creative class” that ordinary people have “too much stuff” and “too much control” over their lives, and the determination to take both away from them.
Consider Obama’s words that Glen quoted. They’re self-inflicted wounds that will haunt him:
Can’t drive your SUV because foreigners disapprove.
Can’t eat as much as you want (Obama will have food police) because foreigners disapprove.
Can’t have your AC on, because foreigners disapprove, and anyone really worthwhile would live in hip central Portland or Seattle.
Obama’s campaign has been marked by incompetence, mostly by himself, time after time: refusing to wear the flag pin and making a big deal out of it, refusing to say the pledge of allegiance when Hillary and Bill Richardson did, on video. Ayers, Wright, Michelle Obama, all disasters of the first order defended reflexively.
More recently, we have Obama responding to GWB’s assertion in Israel that appeasement of Hitler was bad. That’s like opposing apple pie, mom, and the flag. Self-inflicted. Obama is a rookie.
Hillary’s campaign was bad, but under extreme pressure righted itself with help from Bill and his people. Obama’s campaign ran up a big lead easy and unopposed in early primaries, and has struggled in every important state since. He’s been shooting himself in his feet ever since.
_One reason I’m comfortable with supporting Obama is one that I imagine is going to be a stretch for many of you – because I believe he is likely to be the most competent candidate out there today._
Well, this may be the first 4*k year in my adult life in which I don’t cast a vote for President.
However, I find Obama’s balminess more than a trifle disturbing. This is a candidate who has no problem bragging about visiting 57 states. He seems to think Afghanistan is an Arab country. He seems not to know that Kentucky borders on his home state of Illinois. Not to mention thinking that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” is an inspiring phrase that will unify us all with its audacity of hope.
As Malcolm Reynolds would say, “Huh.”
One has to wonder when folks — white or otherwise — are going to catch on that Obama is more Chauncey Gardner than Jack Kennedy.
BBB
“One reason I’m comfortable with supporting Obama is one that I imagine is going to be a stretch for many of you – because I believe he is likely to be the most competent candidate out there today.”
As evidenced by what I wonder? Granted he has run an amazing campaign and issues that would ruin another politician seem to slide off him like water off a ducks back:
Rev Wright (who I think is a distraction)
Weatherman Ayers, “I only regret I did not bomb my country enough”
His lies about The Selma March being the cause of his birth.
Until this election he never had any real competition, that could not be handled with traditional Cook County Political manuevers.
I am curious what his great accomplishments are that would qualify him to run a medium lareg company much less the largest economy in the world
As for Changing Politics from what it is now in Washington?
With what? Cook County politics?
Will Dead members of Congress raise from their gaves for quorum calls?
You know, I don’t really care about the 57 states. That was supposed to be a joke. The fact that he thinks Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois is, even though he’s a senator from Illinois – that wasn’t a joke, it was just funny.
People talk crap on the campaign trail all the time, but there is a limit to what sane people can tolerate, especially when a politician is making prepared remarks. And people who think that Bangladesh goes hungry because Americans are eating all the food are just dumb clear through. And if Obama isn’t that dumb, he thinks we are, and that’s worse.
Since we’re talking about competence, part of the President’s job is talking. Just talking, and making sense when he talks. Bush is very poor at it, but at least he doesn’t utter absurdities like this.
Another part of the job is standing up to criticism without going to pieces. Bush is good at this. Nixon, Carter, and Bill Clinton were very poor at it. But look at Hillary Clinton – she’s taken an epic beating and she looks and sounds better than I’ve ever seen her. Obama, on the other hand, is practically being carried around in a palanquin like an Indian princess, and he’s been getting sulkier all the time. And it’s damned hard to forget Bill Ayers when Obama goes around talking like him.
#7 from Glen Wishard:
bq. _”But look at Hillary Clinton – she’s taken an epic beating and she looks and sounds better than I’ve ever seen her.”_
That’s the problem. She didn’t look and sound as good as she can early enough. She may be the better candidate now, but she wasn’t ready on day one, and Barack Obama was.
You know, I don’t really care about the 57 states. That was supposed to be a joke.
I watched that clip on YouTube. I thought it was a pure and simple exhaustion-driven verbal flub. It was clear to me he meant 47 states, in context. I watched it for the chuckle value, but if I were to make a political point of it, it would only be that if Bush said something like that, the press would be all over him. (Not that Obama should be subjected to that, merely that Bush really shouldn’t. It’s a party-driven cheap shot that’s irritated me for close to a decade, now.) Hell, I know I’ve said things at least that dumb and not realized it until someone pointed it out later.
I’d rather focus on real, actual dumbness. Bush has had his fair share and some side dishes, but Obama is displaying his, as well. His economics are baffling, his foreign policy is weak, and in my view he lacks that on which is already weak foreign policy depends most: personal judgement regarding hostile people.
Well, Al, everybody else here is gunning for Obama, but I agree with you on this one. I realize that running a campaign is not an indicator of presidential ability, but I am impressed by the way he’s done it. He’s raising money using new technology, from larger numbers of people. He’s also come from nowhere, and built his own political resources. This is the exact opposite of W., who already had his father’s connections that built-themselves around him.
McCain, on the other hand, is lucky to still be politically alive. He was almost dead (financially & politically), and brought himself back from the brink in New Hampshire. It’s woth noting that he did this after his campaign managers were deserting him and he went back to being himself. McCain is at his best when he’s a lone gun talking honsetly from the hip… and seems to struggle when conforming to a larger campaign.
And McCain hass done well in polling with less money…. but that’s only because it’s a neccessity. He has less funds, he has yet to see any real competition, or to demonstrate he can merge with the GOP and speak freely at the same time. When push comes to shove, McCain will have to rise above these three issues.
It should be an interesting campaign, for both candidates.
When Obama is off the prompter, his “competence” drops dramatically. I think the better test is when candidates don’t have scripts to read from and are hit with tough questions. So far in this campaign, Obama has not been hit with many tough questions in an unscripted arena, and when he has, his ignorance and lack of ability shine through.
First of all, do any of the candidates have a staff with a lot of presidential campaign experience? My impression is no.
Second, the Obama / Clinton teams are talking “merger,”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24687292/ so I guess Obama wants some of those yes men (and women).
David, there’s a huge difference between command-and-control as executed by a private executive and by a political executive; ask Richard Riordan or Mike Bloomberg about that. But it is a useful input.
I still think a large-state governorship and successful national campign are the best proxies.
Glen, there are a lot of reasons McCain is polling well against Obama (and may beat him) – I’ve been writing about those issues for what, four years? The issue is a simple one, whether Obama – as immature and untested as he is – has any liklihood of being a decent executive if elected.
I’d say, based on his campaign that the answer is ‘yes’. Does that mean you (or I) will like all his policies? Nope.
A.L.
_The fact that he thinks Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois is, even though he’s a senator from Illinois – that wasn’t a joke, it was just funny._
Let me decipher. Obama started his campaign arguing that his experience in Illinois would make him a good national candidate because parts of Illinois are in the “South.”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16177866/ He explained that Southern Illinois is “closer to Little Rock or Memphis than it is to Chicago.”
His cultural geography is correct. Southern Illinois butternuts have more in common with the culture of the Upland South than Northern Illinois, but his evidence that he had any particular support from the region has been shown to be flimsy. I read his recent statement as a concession that his earlier argument was wrong. He is (more than Clinton) an outsider to the region in which Arkansas, Kentucky and Southern Illinois reside.
#10 from alchemist:
bq. _”Well, Al, everybody else here is gunning for Obama, but I agree with you on this one.”_
No, you don’t know that, and I for one am not gunning for Obama in this thread. I think Armed Liberal’s argument here is a good one, and I’ve said similar things myself in other threads, on topics like what’s going wrong with the GOP. The GOP’s campaign is antique, it’s missing a technology shift, and that’s my basis for saying John McCain is too old, while Barack Obama by contrast has been purposeful and a modern leader.
Also, I argued before we all found out about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright that Barack Obama would be a more promising chief executive than Hilary Clinton because a big part of the job he’s running for is to speak well and make the case for America. When someone like Hugo Chavez damns America, answer him back. George W. Bush hasn’t done enough of that, and he probably couldn’t. Hilary Clinton hasn’t seemed inclined enough to do that job, and I think she couldn’t do it either. Barack Obama has no evident intention of doing the job – but he clearly _could_ – and a candidate who may start doing his job right on any given morning _if he chooses to_ is better than a non-starter.
So I’m quite sympathetic to arguments that Barack Obama would be a good leader in a process sense. (Naturally I think he’s a terrible leader in other ways, but that’s not what this thread is about.)
It’s just that, since I take for granted that Armed Liberal has a point here, I’m more interested in the reasoning, and the weighting of values, behind it. Executive experience and running a good national campaign, sure – but where the signals conflict, as they do most obviously with Rudy Giuliani, which has precedence?
bq. Another part of the job is standing up to criticism without going to pieces. Bush is good at this.
If Bush succeeds at this it is because he is so far out of touch with reality that he couldn’t or won’t recognize criticism even if it sat on his empty head for a week straight. And farted every 5 minutes.
A man with an ego that is as fragile as this shouldn’t even be coaching little league, let alone running the US.
If you’re looking for another Bush-style Good at Dealing with Criticism President, Glen, then definitely don’t vote for Obama.
bq. Obama, on the other hand, is practically being carried around in a palanquin like an Indian princess, and he’s been getting sulkier all the time.
Here we go with the Ann Coulter/Maureen Dowd style “Dems as Fems” idiotic slander. Wow, you He-Man Republican folk really know how to elevate the conversation.
They all suck.
AL –
Decent executives are not that hard to find; most successful companies have one. That’s a much narrower job description than POTUS.
Now I am all in favor of a much narrower definition of POTUS – one that excludes qualities that belong to my mother, or to Jesus Christ, or to Hollywood, or to weirdo Hegelian philosophy. But you’re cutting the pie very thin.
Most executives are anonymous creatures, who don’t need to deal with the public or the media. Experts do that for them. Policies are dictated by the owners or the board, who know what they want to do and hire people to do it. (Some companies might hire a CEO to “envision” a new future for them – those are companies that are in trouble, and looking to get into more trouble.) Outside of the office, the executive’s character and personal beliefs are irrelevant so long as they don’t make the national news.
An executive needs leadership, to dispense authority in a decisive and tactful manner. He needs good knowledge of the business he’s running, or his leadership does more harm than good. He needs a record of hard work and getting results.
So if we were just choosing an executive for an average hypothetical organization, not caring about politics or personality, would you find Barack Obama an obvious choice over Hillary Clinton? By law, you are required to leave sex and race completely out of the consideration.
Sepp:
Well, Sepp, you might be surprised to find that I partly agree with you. Bush does have a certain quality of obliviousness, as if the political firestorm around him had nothing to do with him. This is a good quality in that he does not dance to the tune of his enemies, but it’s a bad quality in that he allows the tune to go unanswered.
You choose to call it stupidity – there’s an original insight – but that demeans the intelligence of his enemies, as well. They’ve won the war in the polls and the comedy clubs, but they’ve utterly failed to stop him everywhere else.
But when you say that this means Bush has a “fragile ego”, then I know for sure you learned psychology off the back of a cereal box, and learned it badly.
Maureen Dowd? Did you just call me Maureen Dowd?
So change the Indian princess to Caesar in a chariot. Who cares? George Bush, Sr., was a WWII carrier pilot who used to land planes on narrow, wooden-decked aircraft carriers – a process that must feel something like giving birth in reverse. Yet Democrats amused themselves for years by calling him a “wimp”, and I’ll bet you were one of them.
David Blue:
I am a publicly certified Clinton Detractor, license date 1992. That’s 1992, not January 2008. In comparing Hillary Clinton to Stalin, Eva Peron, and Cthulhu-like Monsters from the Deep, I have not been remiss. I stand on my record.
But to give Cthulhu her due, she has endured the most feckless public rebuff since Michael Jackson’s “Victory” tour. Consider that for the last 15 years Clinton has been greeted everywhere by Democrats, big and little, demanding to know “Hillary, when are you going to run for President?” Some of these same people are now digging a hole to bury her in, and they don’t even have the conscience to do it nicely. I hate to admit it, but I feel for the woman.
No, she wasn’t ready for it. Very few people would have been. Obama, on the other hand, was ready? That’s like being ready on Day One for a foot massage.
Hillary has not been clean in this fight – she is a Clinton, after all. She did her level best to exploit the Michigan-Florida fiasco to her advantage. (By the way, the Obama campaign’s handling of Michigan and Florida was totally incompetent – they just wrote them off, which was a horrible mistake.) But the attempt to bury her has been so embarrassing that even some Obama partisans are unhappy about it.
Never mind Day One – the fight goes to the last man standing. Clinton’s present stoic demeanor is the first thing I’ve found truly admirable about her.
bq. This is a good quality in that he does not dance to the tune of his enemies,
Yep, that’s one way to spin it I guess. Better, he doesn’t hear any music from friends OR enemies. Not an admirable quality by a long shot. This is, after all, a Democracy of sorts, am I wrong?
bq. You choose to call it stupidity – there’s an original insight – but that demeans the intelligence of his enemies, as well.
Yet I never tire of saying it, oddly enough!
Agreed on the second point, as long as you don’t consider me an “enemy”.
Glen: I’m sure the “Cthulhu 2008 campaign”:http://cthulhu2008.blogspot.com/ would resent object to having their candidate compared to Hillary Clinton. That level of negativity is uncalled for in this election!
Seriously though. Ever since she took the Senate seat in 2000, it was obvious Hillary would run for President. And ever since he got the cover of all the magazines back in 2004, it was obvious Obama would be pushing for President one day. The fact that the two inevitable candidacies are clashing at the same time is a hilarious theatre of party politics that we can all enjoy.
Hillary hadn’t been on a Presidential campaign for 12 years, she can be forgiven for trying to play the old school politics in the new digital age; Obama is, er, unfettered by any such previous experience and pulled the younger, hipper, “creepy-movie-making”:http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-now-for-pro-obama-video.html generation into his campaign. I wouldn’t go so far as to call Obama’s campaign’s success dumb luck, but so far he hasn’t demonstrated that success is due to any personal administrative skill rather than a fortunate alignment of the demographic stars.
#22 from The Unbeliever:
bq. _”I wouldn’t go so far as to call Obama’s campaign’s success dumb luck, but so far he hasn’t demonstrated that success is due to any personal administrative skill rather than a fortunate alignment of the demographic stars.”_
Armed Liberal called Barack Obama “likely to be the most *competent* candidate out there today.”
This also implies a comparison with John McCain – who as I see it won the Republican Party’s nomination by having it gift-wrapped for him as the next in line, but throwing it away with McCain-Feingold, and then having it drift back to him again due to fortuitous incidents like the macaca moment knocking out rivals and exacerbating frustration with the orthodox conservative wing of the party, then throwing it in the shredder and burning the remains with McCain-Kennedy, then throwing away the remains with poor financial organization … and then getting it back _again_, though his rivals a) failing to run (Fred!) b) self-destructing through bad strategy (Rudy!) c) getting sideswiped by another candidate (Mitt – who also “inspired” a crippling lack of trust as an instant conservative of convenience, or d) charging up a base that was never big enough to win, by offending virtually everyone else.
_Someone_ was going to get the support that Rudy Giuliani forfeited. _Someone_ was going to wind up being the consensus “not Huck!” candidate and thus the inheritor of the votes of the other self-destructing candidates, and the winner … and when John McCain opened his morning cereal packet and checked the magic numbers, it was him! Woo hoo!
#5 from bbbeard:
bq. _”One has to wonder when folks — white or otherwise — are going to catch on that Obama is more Chauncey Gardner than Jack Kennedy.”_
Sure.
But when it comes to the story of How I Won My Party’s Nomination – isn’t that as true of John McCain? Or even more true.
Not necessarily Mr. Blue. You can turn that argument onto its head pretty easily. One of the best ways to determine an organization’s, or candidate’s, strength is how they deal with the inevitable adversities and setbacks.
Looked at this way, McCain and Clinton both pass with flying colors. Hillary in particular has impressed with her tenacity, it merely looks like she’s run out of field.
McCain also does a good job of dealing with setbacks, although he loses style points for occasional temper flare ups.
Obama, so far, has not dealt with adversity well. I’m charitable and ascribe that to the lack of confidence and experience, YMMV.
David Blue: I agree that McCain got lucky in regards to his fellow candidates this year (Huck splitting off Romney’s support, Giuliani and Fred Thompson making tactical campaign errors). Obama has had exactly the opposite luck in regards to the candidate field, and I would argue that if/when he beats Hillary, it would be because of demographic “luck” rather than campaigning or administrative skill. Of course, we could draw comparisons with other Democratic candidates who were “lucky” to appeal largely to the younger, more radical demographic… but that’s better left for the general election.
A debate over who is the luckier candidate right now might be entertaining, but ultimately fruitless. Especially since we haven’t even started the general campaign season yet.
Where is this proof of competence? He’s articulate, writes well, and has fancy academic credentials, but we’ve had lots of loser Presidents with fancy degrees and an ability to turn a phrase.
Obama has demonstrated little wisdom, which is a far more important quality than intellectual power in a President.
The Republican candidate for the general election needs the ability to win despite a huge disadvantage in money, great resilience for what will be a grueling campaign with inevitable setbacks, a record – preferably a long record – that says they are not George W. Bush, and a lot of substance (both as to character and commitment on policies) since they sure aren’t going to win a beauty contest against Barack Obama. I think John McCain has proved he is by far the best candidate available.
But John McCain has been vastly less efficient than Barack Obama in raising money. And John McCain owes his success to votes, persistence and luck, while Barack Obama owes his success to demography, charisma, a favorable mass media, a mountain of money, and good planning, using caucuses to get around the inconvenience of gathering delegates through mass voting.
As American President, I would expect Barack Obama to display great effectiveness in pulling in more money for the government, and good planning in using institutions that don’t have too much popular input – like the courts – to achieve what he wants.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing. But there’s every indication he’ll be good at it.
I agree. He appears to be th most competent, but look at the competition. Hillary has proved herself just about as incompetent as they come in this campaign and the more I hear from McCain the more I think he is _non compos mentis_. My mother had Alzheimer’s for 10 years and unfortunately, in my eyes, McCain is showing signs of it.
And as Obama faces primaries in Oregon and Kentucky, one of which he is losing very badly, he is in … Iowa, where he had apparently planned to declare that Hillary is toast. Since Hillary still refuses to be toast, he is talking about steak fries.
Obama’s campaign is for true believers only. If he has to reach out for you, you’re not worth his time. Thus he has written off Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida – all states that Clinton carried in 1996. Great strategy. Keep it up.