Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Management Abilities
You may remember Obama, when asked in one of the debates to identify a shortcoming, remarking that he must rely on his staff to keep track of his paperwork, as he loses it. Clinton responded repeatedly over the next few days that the president must be a good manager. Likewise many pundits cite Clinton's greater experience; and, thus, greater ability to manage the federal government.
So what kind of manager is Clinton?
Brad DeLong, a Berkley economics professor who worked in the Clinton administration and whose informative blog I follow and opinion I value, remarked in 2003 (thanks Brent Goldfarb):
"My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.
"So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...
"Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president."
Additionally, I think it fair to look at her management of her campaign to assess how effective a manager of the federal government she may be, and it doesn't seem to have been well managed.
Remember Shaheen's Obama as cocaine user remarks in N. H., for which he was then thrown off the bus? Remember Bob Kerrey's repeated emphasis of Obama's middle name, for which he later apologized in a letter glowing praising Obama's qualifications to be president? Remember Clinton's porcine "strategist", Mark Penn, repeatedly raising Obama's admitted youthful cocaine use in a CNN interview, for which is was subsequently muzzled? Remember Bil Clinton's racially tinged campaigning in S.C. and his Jesse Jackson remark after his wife's huge loss, for which he was also subsequently muzzled?
Then there is this in the last couple of days from Clinton health care adviser, Len Nichols, complaining about a picture contained in an accurate Obama campaign mailer, remarks for which he later apologized.
"I am personally outraged at the picture used in this mailing," Nichols, a supporter of the so-called universal mandate said. "It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois."
DeLong's remarks are damning enough for me, though I am admittedly not a Clinton fan; but her apparent inability to keep the hounds of her campaign from committing repeated, and egregious, gaffes, from which they later backpedal, certainly has sealed the deal for me.
The Obama campaign, on the other hand, has avoided such gaffes and its officials have been very restrained in their responses to the Clinton campaign gaffes.
An effective manager, I know from my days of modest local government management, relies upon her or his staff to manage the paper and to push forth the the mission. A manager must hire competent folks, ensure that the mission is entirely clear to all, and to ensure that all are pushing in the same direction in pursuance of that mission.
The Clinton campaigners have quite clearly frequently not been pushing in the same direction.
I will be casting my vote for Obama in the "Democrats Abroad" election on February 5.




Comments (7)
Thanks so much for your excellent post and for digging up these details. I have been saying much the same thing in short posts for weeks, trying to get people out there to look closely at the respective campaign management by Obama and Clinton. The leadership and discipline of Obama's campaign has been exemplary, even when things were lagging in the summer. Clinton came into this with EVERY advantage, and has run her campaign like George Bush ran companies--into the ground. 35 years of experience? What good has it done her?
February 3, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Brad Delong is just... wrong. There weren't moral hazzards in Hillary's healthcare plan. She failed at selling it, but it was a good plan. Brad Delong is enchoing phony right wing criticisms.
And to say that she ignored warnings that Daniel Patrick Moynihan would be critical of her... She now holds DPM's senate seat, with the late senator's blessing.
February 4, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign hasn't been entirely free of such gaffes, BUT, the critical difference is that when something occurs Obama steps up, assumes responsibility, and personally appologises.
What does Clinton do? Ignore the problem, obfuscate, distance herself, and if that doesn't make it go away trots the offending person out to the gallows to hang on their own.
No organization of the size of a national presidential campaign can keep total control over all of it's messengers but in the few times one of them has stepped over the line Obama shows class while Clinton doesn't.
February 4, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right. Compare this - BET founder "something in the neighborhood" at a HILLARY EVENT. This was not just some rogue supporter shooting his mouth off on a talk show, it was a HILLARY EVENT.
Obama on the other hand has done the impossible. He has actually reined in Jesse Jackson. Jesse, who sees racisim everywhere, actually said he didn't think Bills "Jesse Jackson won twice" was a racist statement.
I mean even Josh's reporting on the issue had the title "NO WAY"
That is some incredible organizing technique. When Obama can make people understand that screaming racism doesnt help his vision of unity, people listen.
February 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
With all respect, Brad DeLong was working with Senator Clinton at the time.
I visit DeLong's blog daily and have found him to be a voice of reason.
Fighting Bill,
My pleasure.
February 5, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Brad DeLong has changed his mind about Clinton's managerial abilities - see his post of yesterday about him voting for Obama. He claims that the single substantive difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama gives nicer speeches (his opinion, not mine).
2. Obama's mailer which deliberately invoked Harry and Loise, and his other lies about Clinton's health care plan are disgusting and despicable - see Krugman's blog about that. Seeing Obama attack his opponent in a Dem primary on the single most important issue of progressive politics - health care - using the most dirty Republican lies is indeed almost as disgusting as watching Nazis march through Skokie.
3. Obama's campaign is not restrained at all - he's at least as skillful and ruthless politician as the Clintons, see e.g. how he introduced the race card into the campaign immediately after NH with plausible deniability. The effectiveness of his political power play is all the greater with the front of hopeful and uplifting fluff.
4. His campaign indeed has superb ground organization of wild-eyed enthusiasts and cynical political operatives - see blog reports of Edwards' supporters about Nevada caucuses. I'm sure something like that will pop up after yesterday - I don't believe that his lopsided caucus wins were all clean. Besides, we don't elect presidents by caucuses.
5. All of the above will not help him if he gets the nomination - the Princess Diana-like psychosis will fade, people will start asking where's the beef. Yes, he can campaign, but why does anyone think he can govern? The fluffy front will quickly crumble, and he'll be crushed by McCain. No wonder Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Dick Morris and the rest of the gang all root for Obama. Please think before joining them.
February 6, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I am even more worry about how Obama is going to handle healthcare, if he's elected. Based on what we have seen during debates, and heard from the media, Hillary Clinton sounded much more knowledgeable and concrete than Obama. So when you say Clinton is incompetent, what would that say about Obama, who seems lost at time trying to defend his business as usual healthcare plan. He didn't even have an understanding of the subsidized low cost Universal Healthcare and had to be educated on it by both John Edward and Hillary Clinton during the S.C Debate. His healthcare plan of calling for lowering premium is straight out from the list of Unfulfilled Republican Campaign Promises.
Under Obama's plan, a chronic / terminally ill person would still end up facing higher premium and left alone to fight against the insurance company as his or her so-called risk increases with the prolonging illness. Universal Healthcare would not let the insurance company get away with that. Europeans and Canadians are disgusted at us for not having Universal Healthcare to cover everyone. It is a worthy cause that we must push for the fundamental value of Universal Healthcare. Now that is a real change.
February 6, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment