Seems to me the best indicator of a candidate's qualifications is the way they run a campaign.

[mattclearing]

Hillary: It'll be over by February 5th. We don't need the minor states, we'll just run in the states that matter. Don't need any grassroots small-time donors, the usual institutional ones that Terry gets me will do just fine. Our war room is a 24-7 circular firing squad, no accountability, everyone blames everyone. Unsurprisingly, we are losing.

Obama: If we get a shot, this is going to go to the convention. We'll have to organize, organize, organize, people on the ground for six months in advance in every single state. Small donors have to have a vested interest in my campaign, reduce the appearance of impropriety in donations from lobbyists and PACs. Our war room has stayed on message, despite major setbacks. Oh, and we are winning.


Based on all that, is there any doubt who would be a better manager in the White House?

[Muttocracy]

1. but, her desk would be neater, right?

:shrug:

If Terry helped them buy their NY house, why can't he help them buy the White House?

[Drum]

2. Bingo!

Not necessarily endorsing your analysis there, but the headline's spot-on.

[ThatPoetGuy]

3. The headline is completely wrong.

This was the fluffnoid nonsense floated throughout the press in 2000 and 2004 -- Bush would make a better President than Gore or Kerry because he ran a tighter campaign with fewer missteps.

No, there's no correlation at all between the quality of an election campaign and the quality of one's ideas, insight, experience, or leadership. Unless you think Bush was a wiser choice than President Gore or President Kerry.

[Drum]

5. Well color me naive.

I guess I was referring to some archaic kind of scruples or integrity...that leading a "good" campaign would be an indicator of good governance.

However, even I know the last line of your reply is utter nonsense. But by all means carry on. :(

[Voice for Peace]

10. I seriously doubt if Bush ran his own campaign. nt

[XemaSab]

18. I'll tell you right now what the problem with Gore's campaign was

He either needed to come out and EMBRACE the Clinton legacy, or totally REFUTE the Clinton legacy.

He wound up doing neither, and in the process looked totally half-assed.

(I love 2008 Gore, but notsomuch 2000 Gore.)

[krkaufman]

23. You leave out the tone and style of the campaign.

I read the OP to be inclusive of function and form.

[Stephanie]

4. Hillary doesn't even know where her money went.

The biggest fundraising machine in the history of the world and she finds out too late it's all been blown on consultants and suites at the Four Seasons and there isn't enough left over to pay for organizers on the ground. Oopsy!

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. "But I never did well at math."

Hillary Clinton myspace: http://www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4998216&mesg_id=4998216

[krkaufman]

24. Don't forget the Bellagio in Vegas.

Some of the money definitely stayed in Vegas, at least.

[UALRBSofL]

6. So what was Bush43's excuse for winning in 00 and 04?

I mean, you did vote for Kerry in 04 and knowing he voted for IWR.

[babylonsister]

7. Terra! Fear!! That's why he 'won' (probably not), but times have changed.

People are tired of being disillusioned by that sorry excuse for a prez.
As for Kerry, he apologized a long time ago, as did Edwards. Clinton couldn't squeeze an apology out, same as *. Mistakes aren't made. That says a lot to me.

[jgraz]

11. Well, first off, he didn't win either election

And personally, I think Kerry would have been a shitty president -- just not nearly as shitty as W.

[babylonsister]

14. Yea, Kerry woulda sucked. All that intelligence compared to the

dim one, and the war was already started, so shoot! Kerry would have just followed in the asshole's footsteps. :eyes:

[jgraz]

16. I never said Kerry would have been worse than *

There hasn't been a word invented that can adequately describe how terrible * has been as president. I just expect (with only my intuition as supporting evidence) that Kerry would have had a Pelosi/Reid style presidency.

[babylonsister]

19. OK, but I think it would have been totally different.

He would have made every effort to stop this illegal occupation, and he would have done it because he believes in diplomacy, as does Obama. I love John Kerry and Barack Obama; for all their perceived failings, I think they are both Democrats, Americans, and I don't have the same impression about our other candidate. She IS both, but doesn't inspire the trust I have.
I don't know how to explain that feeling, but I have it. As the Doors said, "who do ya love?" I know. :D

[jgraz]

20. I agree on almost every point

I just think that Kerry was not inspiring enough or good enough at counterattack. He would have had a tough time against the Rethug toxin machine.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

8. Hey, she's just getting warmed up - not quite ready on day 1.

[Lord Helmet]

9. that's what one of my professors says and its clear which candidate has their shit together

Obama

[ORDem]

12. K&R n/t

:kick:

[Johnny__Motown]

15. Don't forget Hillary pissing away all the money and needing to loan the campaign $5 Million

Pretty clear who knows how to get things done and who has no clue.

[cooolandrew]

17. Exactly why our dems worry for seats down there anv vote right wing to survive. Obama will help them

[donheld]

21. "Hillary: It'll be over by February 5th." With that kind of judgement

I think we better let Barack answer that red phone at 3 a.m.

[krkaufman]

22. Here's an interesting, related passage ...

... from Marc Andreessen's blog post, describing his hour and a half with Barack Obama...

We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?

He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.

At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?

Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

This speaks well to the Senator's ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers -- another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point -- well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.

It is difficult to argue that any other campaign this year has been run nearly as well as Obama's.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. So that makes Kucinich the least qualified

candidate in a generation. And it means Edwards sucks, Biden sucks, Dodd, sucks, Richardson sucks....

And it means that Clinton is about as good as Obama.