Narrowly framing complex issues into simplistic rhetoric is deceptive and illegitimate. The candidates have something in common, ergo all these points are true. Laughable! Obama cleverly worked states he could win. Outside of IL he has lost all the big swing states yet outspending Clinton 3x. Flawless?
This rhetoric falsely suggests there is no grey area between absolutes.
Obama has proven expert at rhetoric, nothing else. Rhetoric is mandatory to run a campaign. Useless within the nuts and bolts of implementing policy.
For example, Obama attempted to lower the bar on foreign relations to I visited Pakistan once and knew the difference the people! Ignorant rhetoric then attempts equivalency, to Clinton speaking on behalf of all women in Communist China.
Those without operational experience, like pundits, PR folks, academics and the media could ever make this type of assertion with a straight face. Obamas own comments simply prove he does not have a clue about what he is speaking. It reinforces the fact his riskless speech against the war was dumb luck, not a thought-out view on a policy.
To say you have judgment implies that you have a clue of what you are talking about, otherwise you are guessing. To equate what is in essence putting on American Idol to the most important job in the world is categorically disingenuous and naive.
Which Democrat Has the Administrative Experience to Be An Effective President? Compare How Well They've Managed Their Campaigns
None of the presidential candidates has experience managing a large executive branch agency or serving as governor. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have all served as legislators, but never in executive office.
The largest organization any of them have led is their respective campaigns. So if you want to learn something about how well they will manage the people in their administrations, you can learn a lot by seeing how well they have managed the people in their campaign organizations.
In this department, the race is not even close. Barack Obama has proved himself a much more capable executive and leader than Hillary Clinton -- despite her claim of superior "experience."
The weekend saw yet another eruption of organizational dysfunction in the House of Hillary. Mark Penn's demotion from the post of chief strategist capped months of organizational in-fighting that has apparently turned the Clinton campaign into a latter-day Beirut-on-the-Potomac.
Of course you have to question Hillary Clinton's judgment for entrusting Penn with the position of her chief strategist while she allowed him to continue as chairman of one of the world's largest special interest PR and lobbying firms (Burston-Marsteller). And the arrogance of Penn's attempt to manage the effort to enact the Colombia Free Trade Agreement at the same time he oversaw the campaign of a presidential candidate that opposed the agreement is breathtaking.
But Penn's demotion is apparently just a symptom of a broader organizational disease. The Clinton campaign has been marked by discord and disorganization. Campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and deputy campaign manager Mike Henry have been forced out. The campaign had no "Plan B" when it failed to score a knock-out punch on Super Tuesday. The poor planning has led to money shortages, big payments to consultants and the failure to effectively compete in many of the smaller states where Obama has run up his insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.
Penn's mismanagement and brusque management style have infuriated other key campaign staffers and led to sinking morale.
But in the end, the buck stopped with the campaign's leader, Hillary Clinton, who showed that she either had no desire or lacked the ability to put together a well-managed, effective campaign organization.
Contrast the Clinton campaign's organizational debacle to the focused, mission-driven, high-morale Obama operation.
Campaign manager David Plouffe, chief strategist David Axelrod, and deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand have been effective managers, and cool under fire. They've assembled a team of dedicated professionals like Iowa state director Paul Tewes who executed at every level with precision, and who didn't leave even a pebble unturned in pursuing victory. The Iowa operation, for example, was the best field operation in modern presidential politics.
They understood how to combine Barack's inspiration with flawless, no-nonsense execution. They planned for the long game, learned from their mistakes and maintained a team spirit that had no room for internal recriminations or backstabbing. Obama's campaign is loaded with innovative talent of the sort that created the most effective grassroots-based, internet fundraising system in American political history.
Even in its darkest moments the Obama organization has never resorted to the kind of desperate "kitchen sink" negativism that has now backfired on the Clinton campaign.
Now I ask you: which candidate has shown the ability and experience to lead and manage a large organization like a presidential administration?
Barack Obama has won the most states, the popular vote and the most pledged delegates. He's also won the contest of who is the better leader and manager.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What is laughable is that you've assembled this collection of non sequitur... *on purpose*. For example, you've made a point that Obama didn't win the big swing states even though he outspent Clinton. First, who was Barack Obama before Iowa and who was Hillary Clinton? Second, how wide was the margin in the polls before he campaigned in those states? Third, do you understand that primary wins or losses in a particular state are not indications of wins or losses in the general? Regardless of your denial of facts, you can't deny this: Obama is winning.
As far as the necessity of rhetorical gifts with policy, you've exposed yourself as being biased against Obama on the weakest of premises. Fact is, a president can move mountains if he/she has the ability to appeal to the People. That's why presidents urge congress to support specific legislation in their addresses.
If you believe that Obama speaks without knowledge, then you aren't paying attention. Case in point, during the Iraq hearings, he was attempting to illustrate a possible path to an "acceptible" and realistic measure of success. There are those whom are criticizing him, but what he presented is the only set of metrics which can not be denied by reasonable people.
I could go on, but I'll just end with this: time and again, Obama *does* demonstrate that he has good judgment, and the evidence is quite clear. Anyone who says otherwise has an irrational bias against him.
YOU trying running a campaign under sniper fire!
This exercise is simple for anyone with access to www.google.com. or Lexus/Nexus.
1. Compile a complete list of everything said by the candidates themselves during this Democratic primary.
2. Put the two collections of exact quotes side by side.
3. Determine which candidate has lied, made personal attacks on the other and/or engaged in innuendo and swift-boating.
4. Determine which candidate has not.
5. Then decide which candidate is ready on "Day One" to best represent America.
After studying the actual FACTS you will be more likely to make a realistic choice.
I made my choice months ago.
Barack Hussein Obama.
I agree with you mr. Creamer
I also think Hillary has a short fuse just like McCain
you mean you noticed how she turns read when she doesn't like a question being posed her? Blood pressure rising - steam coming out of the ears - voice becomes shrill, speaks fast, turns words into lies by not thinking before uttering them? That Hillary with a short fuse?
Watch her eyes. They shift back and forth when she is being sneaky,. Look at the clip of her saying she and McCain have experience and Obama has a speech. And she is not making eye contact with the other people in the room. I'll have to watch to see about her turning red.
I am puzzled that Robert Creamer doesn't remember that George W. Bush and Karl Rove ran two very well organized and highly successful campaigns for President, but it turned out that George W. had no idea how to run the country. It is necessary, of course, to run a good campaign so you actually become President, but it is also necessary to know what to do once you become President.
"...Bush and Karl Rove ran two very well organized and highly successful campaigns ...?"
Wow, talk about historical revisionism ! He lost the popular vote in '00 and barely squeaked by with a few hundred thousand votes in '04 - some "success." And what "organization" are you referring to ? Vote for us or the terrorists win ?
Gore was the favorite as I recall and President Clinto left the office with in history.
Um...Florida 2000...thousands of eligible black voters "accidentally" rendered ineligible to vote by being classified as felons...some votes not being counted...rampant corruption...in other words: what the hell does your post have to do with anything? Gore carried 90% of the black vote nationally. If Florida hadn't "mistakenly" screwed so many blacks over, who do think would have won Florida?
Remember, Gore and Kerry ran horrible campaigns. They were truely bad. At the time I was amazed that Gore may have actually won the first, and that Kerry only just lost the second. I don't think Rove or Bush were good, its just that those Democratic campaigns were unbelievably bad. Its a bit like claiming that Penn ran a good reelection campign for Bill- he didn't people didnt want change and Bob Dole was crap.
As indicated by her Iraq war vote, I suppose.
What Obama has is intelligence, integrity, and judgment.
Bush has none of those.
Hillary just has intelligence.
That's a good catch. Not entirely comparable - yet a good question to pose.
It reminded me of an old movie I believe entitled, "The Candidate". The long-shot candidate with questionable experience had a cracker jack team of campaign managers and staff that got him elected to the U.S. Senate. At the end - as the managers and staff who got him elected were moving on to another campaign - the candidate asks, "What do I do now"?
Jeez...I feel like Ronnie...
That depends on how you define success. He has successfully ran the country the way he and his wealthy backers wanted him to. He has looted the treasury of both the US and Iraq, has given tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while not giving a damn about the rest of us, has ruined well run government programs by installing cronies which makes the people believe that the government is wasteful and incompetent instead of government by Republicans is wasteful and incompetent. FEMA is a good example of this. Has consolidated power to the executive branch while destroying the constitutional and civil rights of the people. I could go on, but do you see how he has been successful by his own definition and not ours?
TedatkMA,
I am surprised that you forgot how negative Rove was- HOW they ran their campaign. There is a huge difference between the tone of the Obama and Bush campaign and this fact should be taken into account. Creamer's other point about keeping "cool" in difficult circumstances is also worth noting. Clinton adapts one style after another depending on what she thinks voters want to hear- not based on what she actually believes. That is what frightens me the most about her.
What is interesting is that he isn't really gone. His company still handles campaign matters.
If I were a conspiracy buff I would propose that this is a way to see who their real friends are.
we have a Performance Measure @ British American Tobacco to determine Leadership, we call it DIRECTION AND FOCUS, as a Maanager in BAT, HRC would be well on her way out of teh organization coz she lack this main component of leadership, cmon, her supporters know this, they just want to pick a fight
You Rovebots all sound alike. Your masters knew it wouldn't be possible to steal this election, so they stole the Democratic Party instead.
What's happening in the media including the Huffington Post has the stench of Karl Rove all over it. Has anyone wondered why the fourth estate, formerly so adoring of all that's Dubya, suddenly is in love with a Democratic candidate? It won't last. Once the 527s are set loose on Obama, what's being done to Clinton right now will look like a lovefest. In the end, there'll be nothing left of the Democratic party, and we'll be in for another 20 years of Republican rule.
Disgusting.
How sad.
You can type, and appear literate, but can't you see Hillary is a liar? She is saying and doing anything, ANYTHING to get power.
You call us Rove-like? Who was it with the 3AM "fear" ad? Who is it that practices the Rove rule, "Create a lie, and repeat it over and over"? Who reduced the campaign to smear?
YOUR GOLDWATER GIRL, that's who.
How can you deny overwhelming evidence?
People keep saying "just wait until the Republicans get hold of Obama." Upon what do you base that? The Clintons have beat Republicans in big races four times (2 President, 2 Senate) plus whatever Bill did at the state level. They have the experience beating Republicans in fierce contests. They are themselves being beaten by Obama. So if Obama can beat the people who beat Republicans, it's logical to conclude that Obama can beat the Republicans. Unless you are suggesting that the Clintons have never had to fight hard against Republicans.
Also, John McCain has refused to engage in the kind of attacks against Obama that everyone keeps saying Republicans will.
Rush Limbaugh has already openly admitted "we can't beat Obama." I've heard him say it on his show many times. That's why he's fighting so hard for Hillary. So are *you* more confident that Obama can be beaten than Rush Limbaugh?
Imagine my surprise: I was delighted to see your argument that since the Clintons have beaten the Repugs on several occasions and the fact the Obama is beating the Clintons it only goes to reason that Obama can beat the Repugs.
Then you followed that with the opinions of one Rush Limbaugh and even go as far as admitting that you regularly listen to his show.
On one hand I am impressed by your analytical skills and at the same time I am appalled by your choice of information or lets just call it propaganda.
You know the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
If the source of your opinions/information is Limbaugh, you will not be wanting for drugs anytime soon - nor is your opinion likely to be respected in the "better" circles! LOL!
-MS
There is not a presidential candidate worthy of the office as it was originally designed. All of the presidential candidates is worthy of the office being what it is now, a pulpit for the money and big business for those that put the person there. America died a long time ago.
It is with great relief that the Clinton campaign has finally found its scapegoat. Somehow we all knew that the historic defeat would not fall on the shoulders of the inevitable candidate.
For months now the Clinton campaign has been positioning potential prospects to blame for Hillary Clinton's eventual loss. Howard Dean appeared to be a favorite choice, and Bill Clinton seemed to be a natural. Barack Obama was always the likely option, but the inconvenient truths of being out-hustled and out-campaigned by Obama were unfortunate reminders of Hillary Clinton's inadequacies as a candidate. And then there were always the old reliables of the media, the right-wing conspiracy, the left-wing conspiracy and activist bloggers.
While Mark Penn has become everyone's favorite villain, democrats owe him a debt of gratitude. Penn gives the Clinton campaign an ideal scapegoat to be blamed for every political misstep throughout the campaign, allowing Hillary Clinton to walk away from the campaign without bearing responsibility for her defeat. More importantly, Penn provides Clinton supporters a target to vent their anger and frustration for losing the nomination. It will be much easier to draw those supporters into the Obama camp now that Penn, rather than Obama, is seen as the ultimate villain. Ironically, Mark Penn the scapegoat may prove to be more valuable to the election than Penn the chief strategist ever was.
Astute. Taking it a bit further, Hillary supporters who are bitter over Barack's nomination may feel temped to vote McCain or sit out the election out of bitterness. The numbers of such voters are higher than what I feel it will eventually be after things settle. But Die-Hard Hillary fans will have a much easier time voting for Obama if they know their great candidate was actually brought down by Penn and not by herself or by Obama.
HillRaisers will be able to hate Penn and then pull the lever for Obama in the November.
Are we voting for a fighter or a leader this year. I know I've had enough divisiveness and confrontation for confrontation's sake to last me a lifetime. I'll be voting for the person who seems mature enough and cool enough to salvage what's left of this country without flushing it down the hopper of personal ambition.
Yeah, I hear Hillary praised for being "tough", and a "fighter".
So, she voted for Iraq to look tough, and now that people realize it was a mistake, opposes the war, but won't say her vote was a mistake, since that would appear "weak", so she still defends her vote.
Remind you of someone else who says "stay the course" in the face of overwhelming facts that show otherwise?
Hillary is the same-old politics of lobbyists and corruption, trying to be marketed with a new label, "new! improved", but it's the same old crap.
Obama may not deliver, but he's the best chance we have of getting anything changed. With Hillary and "more of the same McCain", we are guaranteed that nothing would change.
It would have been a much tougher thing, to oppose the war. She voted for the war because it was the easier thing to do.
Unfortunately, this fighter mentality seldom presents itself on issues of importance, rather it is saved for personal battles and elections.
Amen to that!
Hillary Clinton showed bad judgment in hiring Mark Penn in the first place and even worse judgment in not severing ties with him completely. He is still running the show. Penn's public relations company helps corporations fight union organizing drives. But Penn is an old friend of Bill's. If Hillary ever became president, croneys would be appointed to all kinds of positions.
Don't forget, Wolfson's company also works for the Columbian government and he's front and center at her campaign. Why do i get the feeling she's secretly FOR a trade deal with Columbia's strong man Uribe?
He has been effective in both their campaigns.
Something a little off topic, but Stephen Colbert had one of the best quotes tonight on his show:
Hillary: "When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common"
Colbert: "It's true. They both keep throwing punches, long after most people have lost interest"
The most influential person in the campaign is the candidate. That's who sets the model that the rest of the organization follows. Clinton has set a tone of entitlement, divisiveness and rigidity, Come to think of it, those are the same character traits that led to the downfall of the healthcare reforms she led in the early nineties - it also led to the Democrats losing congress. Lets face it, everyone, the Clinton's are dysfunctional. We are all fortunate that Hillary has been exposed in the process of running against a well organized, unifying candidate - Barack Obama.
Expect this to be a central theme of the Obama campaign in the coming weeks, both with superdelegates and the public. Since none of the candidates have executive management experience, the best way to judge their preparation for managing the executive branch is to evaluate how they've run their presidential campaigns over the past two years.
This is a metric that Obama wins hands down.
HRC says she's ready to be president on day 1, but she's now on something like day 500 of running her presidential campaign and she's succeeded in turning a well-oiled and "inevitable" political machine into an infighting, back biting, low morale, slowly-going-bankrupt train wreck. Since the buck stops with her, she has no one to blame but herself.
Posted April 7, 2008 | 08:05 PM (EST)