Taking another line of attack off the table

January 25, 2008

At a debate 10 days ago among the Democratic presidential candidates, Tim Russert pressed Barack Obama about his management skills. The senator, who conceded that he keeps a messy desk and loses paperwork, said, “[B]eing president is not making sure that schedules are being run properly or the paperwork is being shuffled effectively. It involves having a vision for where the country needs to go…. What’s needed is sound judgment, a vision for the future, the capacity to tap into the hopes and dreams of the American people.”

Hillary Clinton was unimpressed, and said, “I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy…. We’ve seen the results of a president who frankly failed at that. You know, he went in to office saying he was going to have the kind of Harvard Business School CEO model, where he’d set the tone, he’d set the goals, and then everybody else would have to implement it. And we saw the failures.”

Indeed, the Clinton campaign was so excited about Obama admitting that he’s not much of a paper-pusher, they seized on this as a major development. In an interview the next day, Clinton went out of her way in an interview to criticize Obama over his comments.

“I was somewhat taken aback about what he said, that was reported yesterday. I think it’s important that we have a president who understands that you have to run the government. […]

“[People] want a president who they believe gets up every single day and works for them, that requires a president who is hands-on. Who after you set the goals and give the speeches, you go back to the White House and you start holding people accountable and you want to know what they’ve done today to help the American people.

“You’ve got to take on this government, you’ve got to run this government, you can’t leave it to others.”

Over the next couple of days, Clinton brought this line of criticism up “at almost every opportunity.”

As unprovoked attacks go, this one seemed like a stretch — and a rather unnecessary one at that — but it’s probably safe to say the Clinton campaign is going to drop this from its list of talking points. Yesterday, Bill Clinton took Obama’s side.

The Obama campaign recorded the former president yesterday saying:

“The President is not called the Chief Executive Officer of America for nothing. You don’t run the bureaucracy but you are responsible for seeing that your ideas turn into positive changes in other people’s lives.”

Which, of course, is pretty similar to what Obama said:

“But I’m not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision of, ‘Here’s where the bureaucracy needs to go.'”

Just as well. Of all the manufactured flaps the Clinton campaign has come up with, this one was always on the weak side anyway. Is anyone really going to base their vote on who’s going to be more “hands-on” when it comes to the federal bureaucracy?

Well, the Bush Admin was pretty hands on with the bureaucracy as per the Hils vision.

Look how that turned out. Cough NASA climatology bans on climate change, cough, nine fired US Attorneys, cough, DOJ voter fraud fraud, cough, EPA standards waved, cough, the politicization of PBS cough, politicization of the bureaucracy.

Hils better rethink her own ideas of “management” or at the very least explain them better.

  • What, does Hillary believe Barack should have everything neatly filed in man-sized safes to make him qualified to be president?

    Hillary is obviously exploiting any crack she sees to turn it into a chasm, but this potshot really falls short.

    Comparing Barack to Bush is like comparing apples to martians. Bush has a wagon train full of character flaws that Barack lacks. Just don’t even go there Hill. Please, no.

  • I don’t know- they say it’s an attribute of a great leader to know how the job of everyone below him is supposed to be done properly, and many great leaders have made it a point to know just that.

    It’s sounds like this is what Hillary was saying– an intimacy with the details of an office can be an effective approach.

    It sounds like Bill was just splitting the baby– he was correctly identifying that a President isn’t a middle manager, but he didn’t actually contradict Hillary at all. Sometimes a great leader just has to jump into the trenches an kick some butts, so the men remember he’s there. This is just what Napoleon and Julius Caesar were like, and their soldiers adored them for it. Remember Patton directing tanks in a traffic jam in a scene from the movie about his life?

  • I think Hillary was saying she’s going to have a hands-on approach, and that she’s not going to sit back in her locked office with her secretary holding all her calls, content to rest on her mystique / fame.

    She was giving us the assurances we need that she’s not going to be Bush II, and she was distinguishing herself from something Barack said about himself, which is necessary in a political campaign. I don’t know why CB is complaining about it. What should she say, that she’s just like Barack? Of course not.

  • Of all the manufactured flaps the Clinton campaign has come up with, this one was always on the weak side anyway.

    Hey, maybe what Hil and Bill are saying is that they’re so nice they won’t use strong tactics against other Dems.

    (ROFLMAO)

  • Of course, one could argue this suggests HRC might be a better President than WJC who was exceedingly bright, charismatic, and energetic but lacked the focus and discipline to obtain the maximum results on the potential provided by his skills (and I’m not trying to be nasty – i’ve been accused of lack of focus and discipline more than a few times myself 🙂 – could be the work time I spend on CBR. . .)

    Heck, for all we know HRC was actually giving her hubby a little shot there as well as Barack.

  • Pro-Bureaucracy is like being pro-taxes or pro-politics. Which, when it comes down to it, has been the source of most of Hillary’s mistakes — she let’s loose the fact that she, like Bill, loves politics. What’s worse, she believes in what politicians do, and that politicians can be, and are, a force for good. That seemed to be why she cried — I know what I want to do on day one! It’s how she ended up demeaning MLK — she honestly believes that the politicians deserve some kudos for putting into law what the civil rights leaders promoted. It wasn’t a mistake – she really does probably think MLK was just a popularizer until LBJ came along and made it happen. It’s how she praised lobbyists — she actually believes in the system! She thinks that lobbyists giving money for causes does not necessarily make bad law, or mean a politician can’t listen, or craft some sort of policy that appeases all the various interests.

    So it is very much the exact opposite of Bush: government is your ally, not your enemy. Politics is good, polls are good, lobbyists are good, the system is good. But if she says that, she’ll get massacred.

    Bush and the Republicans despised government, analysis and policy. They abhored compromise and diplomacy. Since government could only harm, any law you passed had to either destroy, help you politically or make a crony rich.

    Hillary LOVES what America despises: politics. The question is, do we want someone in office who believes in what they do?

  • It’s astonishing to me that the Democratic Party is willing to embrace the train-wreck that a Clinton candidacy will inevitably become. What is so attractive about this couple that embodies so many of the things that we despise in Republicans. And for what? So that we can watch Hillary spend the whole campaign explaining why she voted FOR the Iraq War? So that we can energize the entire Republican base? So that we can pass over someone who has the potential to be a genuinely transformative candidate?

    Turning to John Kerry in 2004 almost solely on the issue of electability was disappointing but understandable at a certain level. This, on the other hand, is borderline suicidal and thoroughly inexplicable. And, oh yes, it’s just plain sad.

  • Doesn’t anyone remember “Reinventing Government”? Or during the FEMA failures during Katrina about how Bill Clinton made it one of his top priorities to put an effective administrator in charge of FEMA? Clinton didn’t just lay out a vision – he staffed the government with competent administrators who made that vision happen. Clinton then read and read reports to make sure his administrators were implementing his vision.

  • I guess the O’bamaites think all that’s needed in a President is a figurehead giving lofty speeches on the american people being angelic.

  • This all sort of reminds me of the movie Quigly Down Under where Tom Selleck’s character, Quigly, a skilled rifleman, bests Allan Rickman’s character, Marston, a skilled quick-draw, in a pistol duel despite having lamented earlier the fact that he didn’t much care for pistols. As an incredulous Marston lay dying, Quigly delivered the climax:

    I said I didn’t have much use for them. I never said I didn’t know how to use one.

    Obviously, given what open minded people know of Obama’s history, he is capable of managing his office. He may not care much for the mundane aspects of micromanaging, and he may not rate it among his strong suits, but to assume he can’t handle it is naive.

  • So let’s take a look at what the latest polls say, so we can see which candidate’s supporters are splintering the party and setting us up badly for the general with their vitriolic rhetoric over something that’s never going to happen (this is the state’s name, followed by the date of the poll, followed by Hillary’s (H) and Obama’s (O) share of Democratic primary voters):

    Alabama: Jan 23, ’08: Hillary 43, Obama, 28

    Arizona: Jan 20, ’08: H 45, O 24

    California: Jan 20, ’08: H 39, O 27

    Conn: Jan 17, ’08: H 41, O 27

    FL (not a Super Tuesday state, but I’ll still present it for your amusement):

    Jan 24, 08: Hill 47, O 30

    Mass: Jan 23, ’08: H 59, O 22

    NJ: Jan 22, ’08: H 49, O 32

    NY: Jan 21, ’08: H 51, O 25

    OK: Jan 13, ’08: H 45, O 19

    TX: Jan 10, ’08, H 46, O 28

    Wow, those are some pretty big Hillary Clinton leads! In fact, in recent polls, Obama seems to have the lead in only two or three states that haven’t had their primaries yet. No crazed ostensible Obama-supporter commenter can change these numbers

    Kind of makes you wonder why they work so hard to twist everything Hillary says into a mortal sin.

  • memekiller, i think that #7 is a great observation and while i hadn’t connected those dots myself, not only do i agree but it explains a lot of what i like about HRC as i feel largely the same way.

  • linkee

    but to assume he can’t handle it is naive.

    Well, he’s certainly a good talker!

    Hey, if we just keep going with the best talker 9and turning everyone else down) over and over again, one of them’s eventually got to end up being right in every other way, right?

  • memekiller wrote, “[Hillary Clinton] really does probably think MLK was just a popularizer until LBJ came along and made it happen. It’s how she praised lobbyists — she actually believes in the system! She thinks that lobbyists giving money for causes does not necessarily make bad law….”

    Lobbyists giving money for causes? You mean like insurance and oil companies giving money for causes?

    What memekiller wrote above is essentiall correct. That’s why I won’t be voting for Hillary.

  • Well, he’s certainly a good talker! -Swan

    I’d like to know what part of Obama’s history makes you think he can’t manage the office?

  • Well, in the end the people will speak, as they have done before – most notably, in 2000 and 2004. Maybe those among you who are obvious Hillary-boosters will get your Madame Nominee after all. I hope you won’t be sorry, but I think you will.

  • I think I have to side with Hillary on this one. Obviously a President can’t oversee every single aspect of what goes on in their administration, but to have an effective, efficient orginization, those attributes must come from top down.

    What I infered from Barack’s statement is that he seems to think the presidency is some sort of 4 year PR offensive. It’s not. It takes someone willing to grind it out, day after day, night after night. It’s not as glamorous as he thinks it is.

    It reienforces my opinion that he is too packaged, too dependent on public opinion.

  • So let’s take a look at what the latest polls say, so we can see which candidate’s supporters are splintering the party… -Swan

    Are you suggesting that, by supporting anyone other than the candidate leading in the most pre-primary polls, those voters are somehow doing a disservice to the Democratic party? Aren’t you doing a disservice to the democratic process by espousing such a belief?

    I wonder if you’d be so quick to take such a position if you chosen candidate was not leading in the polls.

    I think I have to side with Hillary on this one. Obviously a President can’t oversee every single aspect of what goes on in their administration, but to have an effective, efficient orginization, those attributes must come from top down. -citizen_pain

    I still would like to know what it is about Obama’s past leads one to believe that he can’t effectively manage the office? I think this is a case of people over analyzing a self-deprecating statement he made, but when you examine his past experience, especially positions like President of Harvard Law Review, I think you will judge him capable of managing all aspects of the office.

  • citizen_pain-
    “It takes someone willing to grind it out, day after day, night after night. It’s not as glamorous as he thinks it is.”

    so now he doesn’t want to work? and where do you get the feeling he thinks the presidency is some kind of glamour-job?

    please, think before you write.

  • I want to say, I don’t agree with you, Swan!

    The dream will always be alive, as long as there is an Obama in this Obama Nation, and we the followers will go on believing that he will take Super Tuesday and lead us on to the nomination, no matter what happens!!!!!!

  • Why would you characterize a criticism of Obama by Clinton as an “unprovoked attack”? They are running against each other for the nomination. Statements about the other candidate are not unprovoked, nor are they attacks. They are part of campaigning. When you use this kind of language, you buy into the meme that the Clintons are somehow fighting dirty by campaigning, and you support Obama’s attempt to portray himself as a victim of something unfair. He made the statement, it is fair game to discuss it.

    • Comments are closed.