One of the new critiques emerging (again) is that the way a person runs a campaign is a telling model for how well they will run the Presidency. That due to the size, degree of delegation and busy-ness, this is as close as we can come to seeing how well their admin might run.
I’m no historian, but I’m willing to be schooled. Does that model ring true?
I know this sounds like a General Question, but it’s politics, so I defaulted to here. It’s apt to get specific about candidates anyhow. Please keep in mind that historical references, both pro and con, are helpful if you have them.
Well if your thesis is true it would benefit Obama. As he is running the best campaign of any of the three.
If it is not true, then Obama’s masterful orchastrating is a farce and says nothing to his ability to run a country.
Obviously, I believe in the former. Obama’s business acumen is demonstrated in the field daily. NO ONE THOUGHT Obama could match the Clinton machine, and look what has happened. He’s not only winning but maintaining…its great!
I’ll wait and see what people post about your second Q.
Well, it is a tribute to their executive ability, their ability to handle the rough and tumble of politics, and an extended vetting period.
George W Bush had two successful Presidential campaigns. Nuff said.
Sure, but does that negate that the way he conducted his campaign may have foretold his administration?
That’s what I’m interested in. Not success, but the degree to which it parallels - or might parallel.
But his campaigns were successful in the same way his presidency has been. Both runs for the White House were marked by a win-at-all-costs ruthlessness, smear tactics, dirty tricks, corporatism, back room dealings, and a lack of any concern for decency. Just like his presidency. Were the things that were “done” to Kerry and McCain really much different from what was done to Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, or those US attorneys? He hired many of his father’s people to run his campaign, just as he’s used them to sell the public on his policies while in office. To me, he has conducted himself in a very similar manner. Yes, he won the elections, but he has also accomplished much of what he wanted to as President. He has overcome the checks and balances that used to limit executive power, he ousted Sadaam, he’s bitchslapped Congress into signing off on most of what he wanted (even when it was against their best interests), he lowered taxes for his rich cronies, gave them huge gov’t contracts, and managed to appoint conservative judges to appease the social conservatives. While many people view those things as bad, and see the disastrous effects they’ve had, I don’t think Bush would. If anything, the reason he has been such a horrible president, IMO, is because he’s been so successful in achieving “his” goals. His campaign was not much different in that regard. It’s just that campaigns and presidencies are judged by different standards.