TIME's Joe Klein: "Obama has proved himself the best executive by far."

[Occam Bandage]

In the space of a single week, Barack Obama has won eight primaries and caucuses. Hillary Clinton has won none. The Clinton campaign has explanations, some nearly plausible. The primaries were held in states with large, "proud" African-American communities. The caucuses discriminate against Clinton's working-class base and favor Obama's affluent and activist supporters. Just wait till we get to big primary states like Texas and Ohio, Clinton staffers insist.

To which one can only reply: Yes, but you've not just been losing; you're getting historically, comprehensively clobbered. Obama's most convincing victory came in Virginia, a state itching to switch from red to blue in 2008. He swept most demographic groups there, including such alleged Clinton strongholds as white men and Latinos. The size of the Virginia victory can be attributed, in part, to the momentum Obama had gathered over the preceding weekend in caucus states like Nebraska and Maine. And his blowout victories in those places can be attributed to the fact that he is running a smarter, more rigorous campaign than Clinton is.

I spoke with prominent Democrats in the caucus states, and the story was the same all over: Obama had organizers on the ground, advertising on the air and in the mailboxes--and made crucial personal appearances at the right times. Clinton was late to the game or absent entirely. "It seems as if they simply hadn't thought out what was going to happen after Super Tuesday," said a Nebraska Democrat who supported Clinton. "Obama paid attention. He courted Ben Nelson and got his endorsement. He spoke in Omaha; Michelle went to Lincoln. I'm not saying Clinton could have won here, but she sure could have made it closer, won a few more delegates. Now you just have the sense that this campaign is over. She looks like a loser."

If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate's ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining--Obama, Clinton and John McCain--and Obama has proved himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility. McCain has been effective only when he runs as a guerrilla; in both 2000 and '08, he was hapless at building a coherent campaign apparatus. Clinton's sins are different: arrogance and the inability to see past loyalty to hire the best people for the job and to fire those who prove inadequate. "If nothing else, we've learned that Obama probably has the ability to put together a smooth-running Administration," said a Clinton super-delegate. "That's pretty important."

More at link.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713497,00.html

[Dinger]

1. I Don't Exactly Trust joe klein (nt)

[DesertFlower]

2. i know what you mean. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. Klein's changed his tune in a week

[Kahuna]

40. Sure did. A couple of weeks ago, Obama was a phony and a slug..nt

:rofl:

[Hoof Hearted]

34. I've held fast the opinion that Joe Klein is a total ass for more than a decade now.

Actually, he' more like a boil on an ass.

[goclark]

42. Like him or not ~ if you have trouble

running a campaign with personnel and $$$$, how in the hell can you run the United States of America?


A campaign is small CHANGE , we need real CHANGE!

We need someone that can COUNT and/or hire smart people that they can depend on to manage it for them.

I would not hardly count on her to pick a Cabinet, she can't even pick a Campaign staff.

[yardwork]

56. I agree. I don't give a rat's ass what his opinion is about anything.

Joe Klein is a lying, slandering, cowardly sneak.

[Marie26]

58. Didn't he lie about being

the author of Primary Colors? For like a long time?

[yardwork]

60. Yes. He lied to his own employer - Newsweek - about it.

It was fairly obvious that he was the author from the beginning. When confronted he lied. Eventually he was outed. Newsweek fired him but Time scooped him up. He has no credibility.

[Marie26]

61. Agree.

Why do these media pundits keep getting scooped up like that? Mike Barnacle still gets on Hardball, Robert Novak still appears on Meet the Press, Bill Kristol gets a column in the NY Times. It's like there's nothing they can do to lose creditibility in the MSM.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Kick

[AtomicKitten]

4. Indeed.

K&R

[Occam Bandage]

5. Campaigns are trials for the Presidency. If you run a disastrous campaign,

you'll probably run a disastrous administration.

[Barack_America]

10. Exactly. And what have we seen from the Clinton campaign?...

1). Poor forethought and ability to adapt to fluid situations
2). Poor fiscal responsibility
3). An increasingly alarming tendency to make unprovoked political gaffes (i.e. MLK vs. LBJ, "goin' after people's wages, soulless Putin, "I voted for it, but I'm glad it never got signed into law", etc.)

All told, I no longer have any faith in her ability to run an effective administration.

[AtomicKitten]

15. She has demonstrated incompetence and secrecy

and America needs more of that like we need a hole in the head.

[CorpGovActivist]

54. With the Clintons, the past is prologue. n/t

[Yossariant]

6. TIME's Joe Klein: "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism"

"And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

[Barack_America]

8. You do understand that is a separate issue, right?

And that criticism of one thing does not prevent praise of another...right?

[Adelante]

7. This is what blows my mind

If anybody would have said last year that Obama would run a superior campaign structurally to the Clinton Machine, I would laughed in their face. I believed he was the better candidate, but the better campaigner, the better executive, not really.

If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate's ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining--Obama, Clinton and John McCain--and Obama has proved himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility. McCain has been effective only when he runs as a guerrilla; in both 2000 and '08, he was hapless at building a coherent campaign apparatus. Clinton's sins are different: arrogance and the inability to see past loyalty to hire the best people for the job and to fire those who prove inadequate. "If nothing else, we've learned that Obama probably has the ability to put together a smooth-running Administration," said a Clinton super-delegate. "That's pretty important."

[high density]

9. Joe Klein and I agree on something?

That's atypical.

[Barack_America]

12. Stranger things can happen...

I found myself laughing at something Ann Coulter said yesterday.

"A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination."

Primary season can turn everything topsy-turvy.

[Cha]

24. Eeeeeeeewwww..

she's using "Hussein" like Bob Kerrey ..what a coinkydink.

[bunnies]

11. He's right on the money with this one. nt

[Yael]

13. That is a very good read!

[MethuenProgressive]

14. You Obamabots need to figure out where you stand on Joe Klein.

Present?

[johnnydrama]

22. Joe Klein

Maybe Obama having a lot of adoring fans is not as important as Clinton being a horrible executive.

[Occam Bandage]

26. I don't really care about him either way. I just liked the article.

[Mme. Defarge]

16. K&R!

[uberblonde]

17. From what I've read...

Tom Daschle has played a prominent role in running his campaign. He recommended Obama's campaign manager and most of his major consultants.

Maybe Daschle should be running!

[Orsino]

18. Klein is useless.

I think that Obama's marginally ahead because the lipstick on his particular pig looks marginally better than that on Clinton's. Obama's is a message of hope, or appears to be, because his is a relatively fresh face.

The buffoonish Klein has no way to judge which is running a campaign more professionally, as if that were much of a guide to executive competence.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. Has Klein assessed TX , PA and Ohio?

[Barack_America]

21. Well, it would seem....

...That the one that is not going bankrupt and replacing its top officials might be a little better off.

[TexasObserver]

23. He's stating the obvious. Hillary has done a terrible job.

Hillary could write a book Entitled "How to become a Millionaire"

First, get $125 million.

Second, spend or lose it all, but stop before you spend the last million.

[Cha]

25. Yeah, he's putting the obvious

in a very interesting read. hilary hasn't lost yet but I bet if she had won those states that Obama won they would UBER important to the overall winning of the nomination.

[TexasObserver]

27. Yes, and it's obvious to many except Hillary advocates.

Can you imagine the cacophony of calls for Obama to quit if HE had lost the last 8 in a row?!

[Adelante]

30. No kidding on that nt

[Kahuna]

41. Oh please. They would have taken to the streets with torches and pitchforks..

:scared:

[goodhue]

28. I'm an Obama fan, but Joe Klein not so much

[Occam Bandage]

29. kick

[Eric J in MN]

31. So George W. Bush is a better executive than Al Gore or John Kerry since...

...Bush managed to get inaugurated?

[Straight Shooter]

32. Joe Klein and his revolving door of opinions.

Joe Klein is a pundit you can count on being able to play on a see-saw all by himself and still keep the momentum going.

[Samantha]

33. Looks to me like Klein is a rat leaving a sinking ship

But don't worry, should something unexpected happen and Hillary takes Texas, the rat will find his way home.

[Nexus7]

35. All of a sudden the MSM is cool!

For years, the MSM was corrupt, malicious, or plain incompetent. But since they support Obama now (actually, they will support anybody who is against Clinton), it is cool to post quotes and stories from the same sources and authors who were once despised in this forum.

[grantcart]

36. hmmm seems like Obama was ready

way before Day one

[beachmom]

37. K & R

[Goldeneye]

38. Joe Klein's my fav.

Never misses a beat.

[Tactical Progressive]

39. If Joe Klein said it, I don't trust it.

[Carrieyazel]

43. None of that proves that he's any kind of executive.

More crap from Joe Klein. Media whore extraordinaire.

[rambler_american]

44. Kick

:kick:

[Infinite Hope]

45. Didn't plan for Post-Super Tuesday...Didn't plan for Post-Iraq either. I see a trend.

The last paragraph describes well how she'd be in some ways similar to George W. Bush's administration:
"Clinton's sins are different: arrogance and the inability to see past loyalty to hire the best people for the job and to fire those who prove inadequate."

[NashVegas]

46. CJR: "Press knew he would win big, but still treated it as HUGE NEWS"

As soon as Super Duper Tuesday turned into Normal Everyday Wednesday, the conventional wisdom going forward was that Obama was going to sweep through the next month with a series of wins. The way the calendar was configured, the states holding contests were just demographically more favorable to him, heavy with the demographics that comprise his base.

If you don’t believe me, look at what the blogs were saying. This was Noam Scheiber at The Plank at around one in the morning last Tuesday, a few hour after the polls closed:

…I figured I should just say a few words about what’s likely to happen in the coming weeks, and why a lot of us think it favors Obama. The next round of contests, slated for Saturday, includes Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands. Louisiana is going to be nearly 50 percent African American, Nebraska and Washington are caucuses, which Obama dominated tonight, and the Virgin Islands are the Virgin Islands. (Though, if I must, I think people give Obama the advantage there for demographic reasons, too.) The next day is Maine, also a caucus, and then one week from last night is Virginia, Maryland, DC—all expected to favor Obama demographically. The Tuesday after that brings Hawaii—Obama’s native state—and Wisconsin, which should also be friendly territory for Obama…. Between his near-certain money advantage, the momentum he’ll pick up from the intervening contests, and the fact that he tends to do pretty well in states where he has time to campaign, I think you have to give him the overall edge going forward.

...
Well, you can judge for yourself this morning who won in this narrative battle. It’s clear from all the headlines with the words “surge” and “sweep,” not to mention the New York Post’s reliably histrionic, “WHAM BAM,”** that Obama got the better of Clinton on this critical front. It’s true his margin was impressive and indicated a potentially expanding base of support, but the breathlessness with which it was all reported didn’t quite capture how predictable it was—and had been—that he would do well in these three states. Bias? Not really. More like the desire to tell a good story, I think. Who doesn’t love a winner?


** Me: nice, huh?

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obama_sells_his_narrative_1.php

[KittyWampus]

47. that has become abundantly clear

[gulliver]

48. Axelrod gets all the credit.

He's running through his campaign the second time with a different candidate. The campaign worked for Deval Patrick, so the same campaign was bound to work for Obama too.

I wonder if Klein knew that Obama's campaign is a ditto of Patrick's when this piece was written. I somehow doubt it. I think a lot of people didn't know. I didn't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. well they certainly know that hillary's just a re-run of the first Clinton

administration, hence the negative coverage of her. And that makes me happy. }(

[Garbo 2004]

50. Patrick's 2006 campaign borrowed from Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.

Axelrod worked for Obama in 2004 before he worked for Patrick in 2006. No surprise Obama in 2007/8 used themes/slogans from his own 2004 Senate campaign. Guess you didn't know that either.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/16/patrick_obama_campaigns_share_language_of_hope?mode=PF

[Marie26]

57. But that's just the point

Axelrod ran Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, as he has managed Obama's entire political career. He saw what worked in 2004 & recycled it for Patrick's 2006 campaign. Saw what worked for Patrick & recycled it for Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. It's the same manager, using the same themes, slogans, speeches and marketing techniques. It's not "plaigarism", because Patrick wasn't doing anything original. It's more like Axelrod used the same strategy & campaign for both candidates.

[KittyWampus]

52. And Clinton is a rehash of Bob Dole

[ShortnFiery]

51. Kick!

:dem:

[CorpGovActivist]

53. He's not my favorite, but he's savvy n/t

[Marie26]

55. Well, by that standard, Bush is a genius

His campaign ran circles around Kerry.

[BigDDem]

59. Geez Louise

how many times is Klein going to flip-flop?