Is running a campaign like running the country? And is an entrepreneurial candidate what we want?

No candidate brings everything. Management skills don't guarantee the right decision at the Bay of Pigs or the integration of Little Rock High School. BUT if you remember the first couple of years of the Clinton Administration -- they lost a lot of time and good will because of chaotic management. Of course the difference is that if Maggie Williams returns to the White House they will have a superlative manager (and person), as Chief of Staff and that will make a huge difference. On the other hand, I was around the people staffing Obama's senate office and the thoughtful systematic way they went about it was very impressive. He seems to use his staff and allies well.
I think it boils down to who belongs in the White House RIGHT NOW. As the Clintonistas demonstrated, one can learn to manage. I'd say move to the issues that inform our values and touch our lives and hope that, if the candidate we support wins, they will have the skills and staffing savvy to implement them.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Blog and Media Strategies and Content Development Online and on Television
http:dontgelyet.typepad.com/dontgeltoosoon

I am concerned with Obama's voting record. I really didn't see much substance there. Voting present is taking a stand on nothing...Can we afford a fence sitter. I have been listening very carefully to his words but again not really much substance there. I believe that we need someone with a little more experience than he has. How much change is he really going to be able to bring about? People who are voting for him because they want change really need to look at the Senate and the House to determine how effective he will be in bringing about change. I personally was a bit offended by what his wife said; "This is the first time in my adult life that I am proud to be an American." In any context that is the wrong message to send to the people of the United States. Shouldn't our President and his first lady be our number one patriots????? I think that together Clinton and Obama could clinch this thing....but now I am thinking the unthinkable...voting REPUBLICAN!!! Yikes

She's talking more about the way Bush used the media and his message to sway voters that he was a change agent.

Oh, and Bush "united" people. Let's not get short term memory now. Bush united everyone... Against the Clintons, AND that is the same thing Obama is doing. It gives me shivers that this is really just a repeat of the Bush 2000 campaign, only with a liberal message and more media buy-in.

Did you know Obama's staff produced a four page memo in South Carolina outlining how the Clintons were really racist? He said during the Nevada debate that those were "overzealous supporters" and he never saw the memo. HA! Go out to his web site if you haven't been and see how many Obama supporters are using Republican rhetoric against the Clintons and still calling them "racist" to this day. A true leader would have posted a message on his web site condemning that kind of talk... but he let's it go on because it's working. Like them or not, I think those who really followed the Clintons know they are in no way racist. Bill does so much work for Africa and for AIDS research. Hillary has had great ties to the Latino community for many, many years.

I would argue that the only reason Obama is really "Uniting" is what the poster wrote down further. A lot of republicans hate Hillary and he knows he won't get those votes or endorsements come November. He's talking "hope" but using hate to his advantage. That's my biggest complaint against Obama right now. The "Doublespeak."

It amazes me how a lot of people can't see that. No offense, Morra. You have a right to think differently. We still do live in American, right? ;.)

Obama reminds me of Bush too, and look how good the CEO style has worked the last eight years (gag!)

I actually voted for Obama, but I am not sure that he's the right guy now. When I voted for him, I was thinking... well, we have an early primary this year. Maybe he'll get more into the meat of things as we go on, and he hasn't. I read his health care plan online and I still don't see how he intends to do what he wants to do.

First, let me give him some credit. He has brought a lot of new voters into the fold. That is a wonderful thing. And I am happy that Oprah and Robert DeNero finally found someone who makes them "feel inspired." That was keeping me up at nights...

(The first point about the new voters, I really do think is a good thing). ;.)

I actually think that the fact that Obama has raised so much money from corporations is a bit scary. He says he doesn't take money from PAC's, but those corporations that he does accept cash from are the credit card companies and those who run the media. Obama already voted for unlimited interest rates once (I don't know if anyone really knows that). Do you really think his feelings will change if he's indebted to Citicorp for helping him to get elected? If you haven't noticed, the media is treating Senator Obama much nicer than they are the other candidates, to the point it's becoming obvious to most Americans, even those who support him. I am not naive enough to think that those corporations and the media moguls wouldn't want something in return from him the same way the PAC's would want something from him. To me, that's not changing Washington, it's just shifting the power from lobbyists to corporate America. The question you have to ask yourself when you vote is, "Do you really want corporations running this country?" Is that really change?

And David Axelrod? Well... He takes old clients' "winning" speeches and recycles them for Obama. He lifts lines from the Movie "Malcom X." (Maybe he has permisson from Spike Lee... I don't know). You may ask, "What's the problem with that?" To me, that shows that those words aren't really Obama's. I know all candidates have speech writers, but I still think when a candidate speaks, we really should get to know that person. And, it's a little creepy, frankly, to know that you're being recited the "Hoodwinked" speech from a movie, and people are buying it as this candidate's own words.

Axelrod also encourages Obama to game the system in Michigan by taking his name off the ballot up there so those delegates could never be seated, and then running ads in Florida and dubbing that contest "meaningless" when she wins without any advertising. He has Jesse Jackson putting pressure on the African American super delegates now. Think about it. Obama, a "civil rights candidate" who will game the delegate system to win an election.

Yeah, that reminds me of a corporation, all right: One without ethics.

Bottom line: We all hope Obama is the guy he claims to be. I think his campaign is setting a very dangerous precedent for the future. There could be some nut case out there watching how easy it is to get elected in this country right now. All you've got to do is be a charismatic speaker, have a few winning lines you've picked up from others, limit your actual talking about the issues (because you don't want anybody to know your real agenda -- and many people don't really care about issues anyway -- they just want to feel good), create media buzz about yourself, focus in on people's biases (like Chris Matthews), tune in to pop culture, produce a few MTV style videos, get a few big name celebrities to support you (who frankly are so rich, the problems of today don't affect them much), go after new, impressionable voters, and raise so much money from corporations that you can outspend your opponents four-to-one.

Doesn't that scare anybody but me?

By the way, the only reason that Hillary's campaign is "struggling" now is that she was forced by Obama to spend so much money just to keep alive in Iowa and New Hampshire. McCain had the same thing, since Mitt put so much of his own money into the campaign.

Do we also really want only those who can gather the "big money" to be contenders for President now? That's the way it's been trending for years now.

If you want to vote for Hillary, please do. She's never claimed to be anything but a politician. She has a real plan, and she's been vetted.

Very good comparison. I couldn't agree with you more!
1) I remember the debut of the IPOD. Everyone wanted one, but soon realized that they were costly, especially for middle and lower class incomes.
2) I recall the hype about the IPOD's "momentum" but as it turned out, the battery life wasn't what it was advertised to be. The only way to get better battery life was to replace the entire IPOD with it with a different model.
3) The IPOD was, in part, created by plagiarizing the ideas of other companies. (The case was "paid off" before it ever went to court.)
4) The IPOD ad campaign was based on hype and flash, promoting a product that was prettier but may not actually work as well as other similar products.

Duplicate

So who's turn is it to capitalize on America's wounds? Let's see;
Hillary & Obama are doing a great job exploiting the faults of the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, the national debt. and all other problems with our society. McCain simply wants to guide the nation's course on it's current direction, but with a slight turn to port side. All in all, it seems that none of the candidates has any real plan or idea how to fix the problems thier parties have created over the last 60 years. Back nearly 20 years ago, Ross Perot and Pat Buchannan were warning us that the nation needed reform.
It did. However, with the elections of Bush sr. & Bill Clinton, reform was put on the back burner and is now a faded blur in history, which never took place. It seems when ever the Republicans mess up, we run back to the empty promises of the Democrat side and vise versa. Today, with the national debt. in the trillions, over 20 million illegal aliens just from Mexico alone, the attacks on 9/11 still haunting us and American manufacturing jobs all but wiped out, guys like Ross and Pat who knew we needed reform then, are writing books telling us: We told You So! And sadly, they were correct. If America is ever going to begin to heal and rebuild, charity definitely begins at home. And unfortunately, people like Obama and Hillary will not bring the reform that is urgently needed to repair this wounded nation. Historically, whenever democrats call for (CHANGE), it usually means; that's all you will have left in your pocket after they tax you.. In reality, the only true authentic leader currently available, who could have helped bring some change needed would have been Rudy, but the media, both left & right, ate him for lunch and sent him running, just as they did with Ross & Pat when they dared to challenge the status quo. Obama and Hillary will simply give in to the status quo, which will cause us to vote right wing in about 4 years, so sadly the best choice today would be McCain..... The point here is: We needed reform 20 years ago and we never got it....

Late Friday four consecutive telephone calls were placed to Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters in an effort to find a staffer willing to discuss the presidential candidates behind the scenes agenda. The first three attempts resulted in obtaining only status quo responses from the first three staffers. However, a fourth attempt to obtain an insiders view into the Obama campaign resulted in some revealing insight.

To be clear a female African American was used to conduct the interview. She did not at anytime during this interview represent herself as a reporter, and used the phrase “between you and me” on several occasions. She conducted the interview as if she was an Obama supporter and wanted to make sure that African American concerns would be addressed if he was elected. She expressed concerns that Barack Obama, if elected, would not be looking out for the wellbeing of African Americans. She based her concerns on what she observed in the media, in-so-far-as Barack Obama not addressing publicly many issues that directly affected African Americans.

The entire interview lasted approximately 83 minutes. An audio recording was made to rebuff any future claims by the Obama campaign as to the authenticity and content of this report. However, due to the laws of the state from where the calls originated, the telephone conversations were able to be recorded, but cannot be made public or released without the consent of both parties who were a part of the conversation. With that said if at anytime the Obama campaign wishes to provide permission for these recordings to be released then they shall be. This is an open invitation for the Obama campaign to allow the release of these conversations in there entirety.

During the first 37 minutes of the interview it consisted of general pleasantries in an attempted to make the staffer feel comfortable with the caller. There was nothing more discussed other than their mutual support of Barack Obama and how well his campaign was going. The common conscience was that Obama would win the Democratic primary between Obama and Hillary Clinton and then be ready to take on John McCain.

The first subject that was addressed was immigration. The reporter expressed concerns as to how many jobs African Americans were losing due to illegal Latinos crossing the boarder and obtaining jobs at lower wages that many African Americans previously held. The staffer replied, “Well (reporter’s name), sometimes you have to imply or make certain representations when you are running for office in order to be elected. Even though you realize you may not be able to accomplish what you are saying in the end. Barack understands the election process and how it works. But in the end he is an African American at heart. You may rest assured that whatever he does will be with our community in mind.”

The discussion then moved into the background and life experiences of the cabinet he would select if elected. She wanted to know how many African Americans would be involved in key positions. The staffer responded, “Barack will make sure that the individuals he selects will be looking out for the interests of African Americans. I can only say that you have nothing to be concerned about. You know (reporter’s name), whether they are white or black they will be on the same page as Barack. We have all lived in a certain light for far too long. There will be many changes in this country for us after Barack is elected. We are a family, and Barack will never forget who the family is.”

Then the conversation moved to how impressed she was that Obama was able to gain such strong support from the media, white voters, and the gains he has made with Hispanic voters. The staffer laughed and then said, “Yes it is ironic how Barack has used prejudice to his advantage. He is using the prejudice of some towards the Clinton’s, others to obtain votes so they may prove to themselves they are not prejudice, as well as the republican media to support his efforts because they believe if he is nominated it will rally republican voters to come out and make sure a black man does not become president. Sometimes ignorance is the greatest weapon in politics.”

Later the staffer said in response to another question, “Do you ever watch Chris Matthews the TV commentator from MSNBC? He hates the Clinton’s so much and is on the air beating Hillary up almost everyday. We think it is hilarious that Barack does not have to say too much negative about Hillary Clinton with people like Matthews doing it for him. The reason many republican controlled newspapers down in Texas are endorsing Barack over Hillary are not because they support him. It is because they believe Hillary Clinton to be a greater threat in winning the presidential election than Barack. It all goes back to using their own prejudice to prove they are not prejudice. It is as ironic as it gets.”

The next topic addressed was the standards imposed on African Americans when it comes to jail sentences received for the same crime as a white defendant. How disproportionate the sentences and fines are for whites verses blacks. The reporter used a factious story about a cousin being sentenced the same day as the white co-defendant who committed a crime with her cousin. She explained that her cousin was fined cost and fees of $8,500.00, was ordered to pay all the restitution, and received a 10 to 15 year prison sentence. While the white co-defendant was fined cost and fees of $2,500.00, was not ordered to pay any restitution, and received 2 to 4 years, for a lesser offense, that was deferred as long as he did not commit another crime for 3 years. The judge in the case sited that it was her cousin’s second offense, the first was a domestic misdemeanor, and that in his opinion her cousin was the “mastermind” to the crime. This was the judge’s justification for the difference in each ones sentence. The staffer responded to this by saying, “I feel and understand your pain and concerns. Barack is well aware of these issues. I am not at liberty to discuss what he may or may not do to correct these injustices that go on every day in our communities. But know this. When Barack is elected there are going to be changes to eliminate these miscarriages of justice. Not only to stop such injustices in the future. But to go back and make sure that those such as your cousin have their sentences reviewed and reevaluated so that based on the color of their skin was not the justification for a bias sentencing.”

The reporter than went on to address government benefits that have been lost by African Americans throughout the past 30 years. The disproportionate number of programs wiped out, and assistance that primarily benefited those in the black community, while so much money is spent to help those in the white communities. What would Barack do to change that trend and get help for those how need it most. The staffer laughed once more and said, “(Reporter’s name), those days of program inequality on every level will be gone once Barack becomes president. It is understood by Barack that he cannot bring back such programs as welfare in the form as it previously existed. But he is well aware of the problem, and has a plan to bring an equal amount of aid and assistance back into the black community. If a white farmer can be paid for crops that did not grow because of a drought. Then why should is a black auto worker not be paid for the cars he cannot build because a corporation sends his job overseas? This all goes back to someone like Barack looking out for those others refuse to look out for based on politics and race. You can trust that there will be change with such issues.”

There were seven other points included within this discussion that we believe are too inflammatory, and should be addressed by Barack Obama directly. However, we believe that Mr. Obama needs to come out and address these issues directly. Explain his position on each and every one of these issues. We further believe that it needs to be done in the form of an open two hour live press conference where any and all questions will be answered by him. Voters are tired of a black or white America. They want change, but the change they want is towards equality for all. Whoever is elected, whether it is a Democrat or Republican, needs to recognize this and be the person that brings the country together for the good of all. Not by saying or reading a script they are handed in order to win an election.

If Barack Obama is to be elected president of the United States then America needs to hear the answers to these questions before they vote. If Mr. Obama is unwilling to openly address these questions and concerns in an open forum prior to any future elections. Then those supporting him should reevaluate who they are supporting.

This election is too important for the nation as a whole. We need to stop letting the media influence every election, and demand that they do the job they are there for. Report the facts, ask the tough questions, stop letting their biases influence an election, and let the voters make an informed decision based on the facts for who they wish to support. Those in the media need to keep their personal opinions and beliefs to themselves.

One other point of contention that needs to be addressed is the polls put out there by the media and politicians. Polls do nothing but influence people for all the wrong reasons. Poll reporting needs to be abolished. All polls do is influence undecided voters, and change the mind of other voters, who want to be on the winning side. It is human nature to want to be a part of the winner. But that is not what elections should be about. They should be about the voice of the people, not polls. Polls should be banned from being reported until after an election.

Lastly, do not let the media or polls influence your vote. Vote for the individual who you believe will best support the entire country. Do not cast your vote based on the personal beliefs or feelings of those in the media offering their biased opinions. Do not cast your vote on what the polls represent because as you have seen in the past they can be wrong. Vote for what and who YOU believe in.

but I will be happy to support Obama if it turns out that way. As I listened to his speech in Houston last night after his big win in Wisconsin, I got all warm and enthusiastic as he spoke. He said all the things I want to hear from a Democrat, promised all the right things. Then he did it some more. And some more. Eventually I began to suspect he was making too many promises.

Clinton and Obama have basically the same platform, the same goals. MY goal is to get one or the other of these Democrats in the White House. How do I decide between them in the meantime?

I've been around a long time, and I've watched Hillary a long time. Her entire life has taken a trajectory that I think is right for the country, good for the people. She's already taken the hard knocks and knows what to do about them. So I'm deciding based on experience and past actions.

Bush got elected because he made us afraid and convinced us he was able to protect us--the strong father figure who would protect America.

Yes, I want change in Washington--even the Republicans are ready for that. But I don't want to pin my hopes on "change" as the only factor. After all, we are talking about the US government here.

Note: I'm coming back to edit this after I originally posted it, because I didn't actually answer the question. I do think the organizational skills, choice of people to do the work, and positive tone of the Obama campaign indicate good leadership skills on Obama's part.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

Kim,

To what extent might we expect/anticipate Congress to work with or be worked into Obama's strategies? Bush went the unilateral executive route. Do you have any thoughts on this? Does Obama's relative-only lack of familiarity with Congress hinder or help an Obama administration in getting the results he envisions?
Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

You're right, Morra, Bush did run a very successful campaign. Perhaps the best indication of what his presidency was going to promise was the fact that the strongest voices in the Bush camp were the neocons who had laid out their vision of Pax Americana ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A... ) back in 2000. In that sense, he has done exactly what he said he would do.

To some degree, Obama reminds me of Reagan. Both lead primarily by inspiring. Both have strong support networks among the power elite and the grass roots. Obama's persona is more cerebral than Reagan's, of course. Reagan's path to the White House was carefully calculated over a longer period of time -- Haynes Johnson's Sleepwalking Through History traces its origin back to before the 1964 election. And most importantly, I think that people project both their greatest hopes and fears on both men.

So the real question is: what does Obama's management of the campaign tell us about the kind of President he'd be? As with GW Bush and Reagan, I think you have to look at the people around the man. In Obama's case, I would expect aggressive political organization and a deliberative leadership style in the service of a mostly centrist political vision.

The real test -- and the one GW Bush arguably failed most miserably -- is what you do when your strategy doesn't get the results you envisioned? Bush frequently becomes more entrenched. Does Obama's management of his campaign indicate how he manages under those circumstances?
Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|

I haven't finished it yet, but seriously - it is very, very interesting.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/0...

Analyzing how well someone runs a campaign is definitely legit, but I do not believe that running a successful campaign is the same as being good at governing a country.

I think of it more like this: writers can pitch book proposals that get them great advances, and then it falls through. Does that mean that they are bad writers, if they were able to do a great pitch?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I agree Morra. And if Obama is the nominee, I will support him. But., when you think about it...People are feeling "desperate" right now, and this election represents a kind of "last hope" in the minds of many people....that wasn't the case when Bush was campaigning. When people are "desperate" they will "follow" (look what happened after 9/11)...Would Obama have this type of following if he had been running this campaign during the same time as Bush?

This is an example of how McCain and the GOP could beat Obama....

The thing that scares me the most is...Obama getting the nomination, but then losing to McCain.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs ( http://www.catherineblogs.com/ ), The Political Voices of Women ( http://politicsanew.com/ ), Care2 Election Blog ( http://www.care2.com/politics/features/ )

Catherine, it was my first thought too: GW Bush was the "CEO President," etc.
But, as Yvette notes, "Bush did *not* unite during his campaign. Obama seems to be doing just that, in terms of involving a wide demographic."

That is indeed a skill: leadership.

Catherine, check out this piece from Robert Samuelson ( http://www.newsweek.com/id/113672 ) in Newsweek:

The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

* Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).
* Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.
* Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."
* Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees—mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees—shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

I've heard a lot of criticism of Obama because of his lack of experience. Catherine questioned in her comment whether there was anything to Obama _other than_ his campaign. I have to disagree here.

Twenty (thirty, forty?) years of politics as usual has left the country disenchanted, in economic, military, & diplomatic crisis, and far from what any of us could consider America's true potential. So is it such a bad thing to have a political outsider, an entrepreneur, a brilliant speaker, someone who is not bought-and-paid-for with corporate money, to shake things up?

Obama has surrounded himself with the best and brightest people from the beginning of his campaign, so I think it's logical that he would continue to do so as President. And Morra is right--the entrepreneurial spirit is integral to many Americans' vision of their country. Wouldn't it be a nice change to have a President with such grass-roots beginnings instead of someone who will continue to cater, to the pubic's detriment, to big business?

Julie Artz
Mama to Gabriel (9/04) and Lily (5/06)
ChezArtz.com - My personal blog
GreenArtz.com - Gardening for Food & Fun in the Foothills
ToysNaturally.com - My blog for natural toy reviews and more!

Bush did *not* unite during his campaign. Obama seems to be doing just that, in terms of involving a wide demographic. And an Obama VP spot under a divisive President who cannot unite anyone will not serve him well, no matter what he does with the "experience."

Good post, Morra--Thanks. I definitely think the actual running of a campaign--not to mention the character that pokes through during this time of great stress--might be a valid thing to look at when judging future competence. It is not all, of course. But another thing to consider--in a long list of things!

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

Hey Morra.

Bush was going to be a "uniter not a divider" - A great campaign - but a great president?

When I hear all of this same stuff that you say is making you shift towards Obama, it is making me question Obama. In the case of Bush - We elected a "persona" that was developed by a campaign. Who is Obama...minus his campaign? Obama is a very charismatic speaker, but his words are still the words of a speech writer. [Granted, Hillary could use better speech writers.]

I love just about everything Obama says. I love the hope and his passion. But words, and hope, and dreams, really mean nothing if they can't be implemented.

I really think that if Obama teamed with Clinton (as her VP) -- His charisma and vision would uplift the Hillary campaign and get them to the white house (which is the ultimate goal here). And then, his experience as a VP would almost guarantee him the next Presidential spot, which then has the potential of a 16 year run for the democrats in the white house. Thinking long term is the only way Clinton and Obama will have a "real" chance of making true change...and I think if they work together, they really can make change.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs ( http://www.catherineblogs.com/ ), The Political Voices of Women ( http://politicsanew.com/ ), Care2 Election Blog ( http://www.care2.com/politics/features/ )

Just what I needed -- more food for thought!

Seriously, it does raise a question about a blind-side the Clinton campaign seems to have. Was it the same one Hillary AND Bill had when it came to their initial health care proposal?

I voted for Hillary and, at the moment, am still supporting her. As for Obama -- is it him? Or are these decisions being made by those running the campaign who won't be around for an Obama administration??