Organizer-in-Chief or Commander-in-Chief?

At the debate in Las Vegas Senator Hillary Clinton dominated the round table. Seated fortuitously in the center, she seemed like the CEO in a boardroom discussing issues with two feisty but competent subordinates. She was knowledgeable and forceful. She was inclusive as she asked Senator Obama to co-sponsor legislation. She was take-charge as she insisted on injecting answers on which she had passionate convictions, like the welfare of children. She took aggressive swipes at the current president, calling him "pathetic."

Hillary was in her element at this last debate. She's a policy wonk a la her husband, but without the homey rhetoric and charm of a storyteller. She's more like a distaff Al Gore, less wooden but equally serious, focused and humorless. Hillary's who you wanted in your study group in college, but not who you wanted to party with after finals. But we're not electing a friend; we're electing a chief executive for the country. For that role, Hillary came across as fully and proudly ready to lead.

Senator Barack Obama did not come across the same way. He would, of course, be good in a study group, too, and he'd probably be fun in the bar afterward. He's good at a quip, charming in his self-deprecation and sincere. On the chief executive front, however, he's shaky. It wasn't just his admission that he can't keep his papers at hand or in order. He seems to believe that his primary role is not to wield executive authority, but to bring Americans together around the great issues we face. But his "kumbaya-like" invocation smacks of historical naiveté.

America's history of change in the rights of women, workers, minorities and misguided policies is a history of people organizing to force the government to act. Check your People's History of America by Howard Zinn. Lincoln didn't organize the abolitionists. FDR didn't organize workers or the veterans in the Bonus Army or blacks who pressured him to help pass a federal anti-lynching law, and who pressured later presidents on larger civil rights' reforms. The first and second waves of the women's movement, movements against various wars and for economic reforms, all were movements of the people, by the people. They didn't need presidents who, as Obama claims, could "bring people together from different perspectives." They wanted presidents who, like Lyndon Johnson, understood the sausage-making task of passing legislation well enough to get something to the Oval Office for a signature.

If Obama thinks he won't be fully occupied by his executive role, he should ponder what JFK said about how he hoped to act as president. "I want to be a president," he said during his campaign, "who acts as well as reacts, who originates programs as well as study groups; who masters complex problems as well as one-page memorandums. I want to be a president who is a chief executive in every sense of the word, who responds to a problem, not by hoping his subordinates will act, but by directing them to act, a president who is willing to take responsibility for getting things done, and take the blame if they are not done right." Did JFK arouse people's emotions and inspire them? Certainly. And clearly Obama has that ability. But JFK understood that his chief job was to wield executive power to its fullest in pursuit of his goals.

Nothing in Obama's debate performance showed recognition of the fully absorbing and intricate difficulties of the president's role. Leaders know that making change involves conflict between constituencies. There is no magic coming together that will change that fact. It's just brutally hard, often delicately strategic work that takes not only the desire to effect change but also, like it or not, experience.

Hillary Clinton spent eight years as close to executive power as any person in any administration ever. She's added another seven years as a workhorse in the Senate, willing to work across party lines to make change. She's ready to be Commander-in-Chief because she understands just what that role means.

Comments

[vbond]

A helpful reference.­.. Doris Kearns Goodwin:

"To appreciate the magnitude of Lincoln's political success, it helps to understand just how slight a figure he appeared to be when he arrived in Washington.

"Never did a President enter upon office with less means at his command," Harvard professor James Russell Lowell wrote in 1863. "All that was known of him was that he was a good stump-speaker, nominated for his availability--that is, because he had no history."

His entire national political experience consisted of a single term in Congress that had come to an end nearly a dozen years earlier and two failed Senate races.

He had absolutely no administrative experience and only one year of formal schooling. Newspapers described him as "a third-rate Western lawyer" and a "fourth-rate lecturer, who cannot speak good grammar."

In contrast, his three chief rivals for the Republican nomination were household names in Republican circles.

William Henry Seward had been a celebrated Senator from New York for more than a decade and Governor of his state for two terms before he went to Washington.

Ohio's Salmon P. Chase, too, had been both Senator and Governor, and had played a central role in the formation of the Republican Party.

Edward Bates was a widely respected elder statesman from Missouri, a former Congressman whose opinions on national matters were still widely sought.

All three men, knowing they were better educated, more experienced and more qualified than Lincoln, were stunned when he received the Republican nomination and went on to win the election."

Francis Fukuyama was wrong.

History has not ended.

We are living in it.

Right now.

[vbond]

"Nothing in Obama's debate performance showed recognition of the fully absorbing and intricate difficulties of the president's role."

First, I believe that Obama's comment about the messiness of his desk was ill-considered, for the reason that some - as you do here - will hang onto this image as a confirmation of your belief that he does not have the executive temperament and skill to "run the government­."

If you - and others too - will widen the aperture of your regard, you might notice that the best possible evidence of Obama's executive skill and judgment has been on display for well over a year: his incredibly efficient and effective campaign.

In the face of absurd odds, with no decades-long national campaign history and no resources to speak of at the beginning, he has envisioned, built and is daily operating what may well be the largest and most complex campaign organization in the history of the American nominating process.

If he had interviewed with you for this job, you would have rejected him on the grounds that you give us in your post (you know I'm right about this).

And you would have been massively wrong.

As you also are wrong about his prospects for managing the Presidency.

If Tim Russert had asked Ulysses S. Grant what his strengths and weaknesses were, and Grant had answered honestly, he might have mentioned that he liked a drink or two or three now and again.

You would have thereby disqualified him for his prospective job as General of the U.S. Armies during the Civil War.

You would have been wrong about this too.

Fortunately, you were not making this decision..­. Lincoln was.

When Lincoln was cautioned about Grant's drinking, among other issues, Lincoln said simply, "I need this man. He fights."

I am certainly no Lincoln, but the facts that are on display in front of us every day say loudly about Obama (however messy his desk may be):

"We need this man. He leads."

[TheKiddy]

John Edwards organized successful battles against cadres of well-financed, ruthless corporate lawyers. So, you have choice. It isn't just Hillary and Obama. You can choose someone who knows how to run a business and is inspirational also.

[LindaG55]

I completely disagree. Senator Obama seems much more suited to bringing people with different viewpoints together to get something done. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, is divisive. There are many Republicans in Congress who will never work with her.

[MRb1000]

Well, you are wrong. Hillary Clinton is a micro manager. This means nothing will get done. Obama is the type that will let people do their job. He is very smart. In the military they teach us not to be micro managers. The teach us to give our troops the tools and get out of the way and let them do their jobs. Well this is how the commander in chief should operate. Civilian do not understand that type of management. I am surprise that Barack does get it. So your argument is weak. Most military men and women would love to serve under a commander in chief that dose not micro manage.

America we do not need a Micro Manager.

We need a Leader ( Officer and a Gentlemen)

America we have Micro manager in the White House now.

Out with the old in with the new

[burntbeans]

"She's added another seven years as a workhorse in the Senate, willing to work across party lines to make change."

Please cite examples. My reasons for supporting the candidacy of Senator Obama are largely based on the fact he has a proven record of getting legislation passed by working not only with his political enemies, but with groups of people who are frequently opposed to the legislation in question (his work with police officers to pass legislation that would require taped confessions of criminals in Illinois, for example.)

Senator Clinton frequently seems to back legislation whose primary goal is the benefit of her future campaigns (see Flag burning amendment.­) Her record in the White House and the senate indicates to me that she is only good at passing legislation that polls well, as opposed to legislation that can make a difference in peoples lives.

[MartiP]

Great post. I am sick of incompetent government, and do not want another "big vision, no clue" guy at the helm of my country.

Hillary Clinton is a workhorse, and has a remarkable grasp of all the intricate problems facing us. If this were a job interview, I hire her.

[markkraft]

Since you're citing Howard Zinn, how about this quote by him?

"Hillary Clinton is so opportunistic. She goes where the wind is blowing. She doesn't say what needs to be said. And Barack Obama is cautious. He's better than Clinton...­"

Also, what are your personal thoughts on Hillary Clinton's history, such as:
- her involvement in the firing of the White House Travel Office, and the granting of that business to political contributors

- her accusing Gennifer Flowers of the crime of falsifying evidence by doctoring tape recordings of her conversations with the President, even though he later admitted an affair under oath

- her numerous "I can't recall..." statements in testimony

- her failing to turn over subpoenaed records

Do you find any of the above to be factually in error?

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Hillary may have made the bizarre MLK/LBJ comparison (with herself in the role of that acronym forever attached to another long, tragic unnecessary war) as a political strategy which would isolate Obama as "the black candidate"-- or force him to paint himself as a "victim."

Obama's Chief Operating Officer comment could be his own campaign's strategy to pull Clinton into a blunder. Since she can't resist any chance to pounce on some apparent Obama weakness in order to score a few political points, maybe he knew Hillary would jump all over this as she did on NBC News last night.

Then Obama has the perfect reply: Bush promised to run as a CEO too, yet he couldn't even unify the half of the country that voted for him. He couldn't inspire Americans to care about the problems which led to the aftermath of Katrina, or to deal calmly and purposefully with their anger and sorrow following 9/11.

But Hillary isn't Bush. She's McCain. If you followed McCain in Michigan you heard him say, ever louder and more emphatically: "I'm experienced, I'm tough, I've got the know-how, I've solved all the problems and I'll solve this too." Examples please? In the debate, Hillary's monotone still managed a crescendo of emotion as she insisted, more and more, "I'm ready on day one, I'm experience­d."

She's been in the Senate for as long as Bush has been in the White House-- maybe the worst President. This experienced, tough, smart Senator-- what has she done to stop Bush?

Hillary-- you ain't Russ Feingold. Maybe you could run Wal-Mart or Tyson Foods, but I don't want you running my country.

[AnninCA]

I thought Obama came off like an executive who got there because he played golf.

Scary to think of another 4 years with someone whose notion of leadership is to install someone in key positions and let em' rip and roar.

Particularly, since I suspect some of the people whom he's going to end up owing aren't the best and the brightest.

[RationalDem]

Sounds like Hillary is running to be White House secretary, because she wants to do all her own stapling and copying. Who wants another micromanager like Rummy? Not me.

[Absintheforall]

Commander in Chief? Commander in Chief? Hell, she'd look funnier than Mike Dukakis in a tank if she tried to lead real soldiers!

[JoeCHI]

Great post. Brava!

[freya100]

Bravo Robin, well-said.