Well, the man is a policy wonk. He has extensive contacts at the University of Chicago, and attracts serious policy makers.
McCain surrounds himself with lobbyists.
You might try visiting Obama’s website: the issues section is unsurprisingly pretty detailed.
As for Obama’s managerial skills: his campaign had a staff of 500, started from scratch a little over a year ago. It toppled the best machine in the business and displayed innovative tactics on the web. By all accounts, he led a lot of very bright people who interacted with strikingly little internal drama.
Perhaps I have misjudged the man. He evidently has some very good ideas. And his organizational and managerial skills are very impressive.
However, I’m not convinced that those attributes alone are enough. I can’t help feeling that there is something missing. And I find it strange that Mr. Obama strayed from his narrative of “change” and chose a running mate who has been in Congress since forever.
Liberal said that “he has demonstrated that the world will follow his lead, and that he can restore America’s good standing and respect.”
Well, that’s just a tad over the top.
I don’t have a dog in this race (I’m Canadian), but if I could vote, I’d go with Obama because I believe that a McCain administration would be a complete disaster.
Not much of an endorsement for Obama, but that’s how I see it.
As I recall, the knock on him for the failed hostage attempt is that one of the reasons it failed was that it was being micro-managed from the White House, with Carter demanding approval on every step along the way. This caused a lot of confusion on the ground, which contributed to the mission being messed up.
The others are right in saying that I omitted mentioning that he started off as a lame duck because he ‘cleaned house’ and installed his own people, which pissed off the existing power structure and also ensured that Carter would be surrounded by people who didn’t know how Washington worked and were naive.
That could be, too. But what I clearly remember is him seemingly taking the blame for the freak sandstorm that killed the rescuers. I found it highly bizarre at the time. Of course, I lived in a pretty anti-Carter part of Texas then.
Speaking as a foreigner with a foreigners perspective I always remember Carter during some vital arms reduction talks with the Soviets (Was it the SALTS?)telling them at the very beginning that he was cancelling the, I believe B1 bomber project
I dont know if he thought that by being honest and upfront with the Russians they would be nice to him or even honest in their negotiations with him but they weren’t.
Neither did they make a reciprocal offer in exchange.
He had in effect given away a major bargaining counter away for nothing.
I agree with many of the posters on here that he was a very honest man but not a great P.O.T.U.S.
A sandstorm in the desert - gee, what are the odds?
I think Obama is in for a nasty surprise if he thinks winning the election and having a Democratic Congress means he can enact his agenda with no problems. Congress is already controlled by Dems - he isn’t going to get any credit for coattails. And they can’t get anything done anyway, except grow the deficit.
This is one of Obama’s weaknesses, and one that won’t go away just because all the lefties are in denial about it. He has no experience running anything but his mouth, and you don’t pass a legislative agenda with nice speeches. He hasn’t been part of the Washington scene long enough to form any strong alliances or to get a real feel for how to shepherd laws thru. And nobody is beholden enough to him, and he is not an experienced enough leader, that anyone will fall in line behind his ideas (such as they are) just because the Obamaniacs want them to.
They’ll raises taxes, and then jack up spending even more. We are already hovering on the edge or already in recession, and this will make it much worse. Can anyone say ‘stagflation’? Or he will fuck up the benefits of the surge in Iraq (or do something stupid in Afghanistan) and all the screams that “BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED!!!” in the world will not change the fact that things were things were improving because of a strategy that he opposed, and started downhill once he tried his own ideas.
His best chance is to back off from the kind of socialism lite that he claimed to support in the primaries and govern as a moderate. That means working against the far left in Congress and compromising. The media won’t call him on any of the promises he would have to break, so he has a chance to get away with it. Whether he has the political insight to see that it is necessary, and the backbone to follow thru, remains to be seen.
You’re kidding right? Remind me again which party’s brain dead war, and even stupider tax cuts caused the 9.5 trillion dollar deficit and weakened the dollar?
Republicans: why foreign bought gas is $4 a gallon.
Just wanted to say I have never heard, and would not have taken seriously, the notion that efficient management of an amply-funded electoral campaign is an affirmative qualification for office.
Then, with all due respect, you’re not thinking hard enough.
The Presidency has many job requirements. Sound policy sense. Good judgment. Avoidance of both micromanagement (Carter’s problem) and oversight (Reagan’s deficiency). Precision and discipline with language: saying “Taiwan and China” rather than, “Taiwan and Mainland China” can lead to a big international kurfluffle.
Luckily, the President can hire a top quality staff to compensate for some his deficiencies.
Obama has run organizations of various sizes with a minimum of drama. He attracts top people like Samantha Powers of Harvard and Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. Ok, running a smooth campaign isn’t a sole qualification. But it does reveal in part the candidate’s management style.
It sure is a better indicator than media blovating about character. During the 2000 election, the MSM basically got everything about GW Bush wrong. (“Reformer with Results”, “Uniter not divider”, “Hands off overseer, just like the way he managed that sports team”.) Nothing about ideology. Nothing about disinterest in expertise and willingness to override it. At the same time, GW Bush’s message discipline was certainly revealed during that campaign, though not commented enough on.
I was being honest when I said I’d never heard campaign management mentioned as a qualification.
But let me ask you a question – wasn’t Bush’s campaign pretty darn well managed? Wasn’t the whole knock on him that it was all about the well-oiled Rove-Hughes machine, and there was no substance behind it? Hasn’t that been largely borne out?
Yes, yes and yes. An observer of the 2000 campaign could see that Bush had a lot of message discipline, though it wasn’t entirely clear whether or not he could give a decent press conference. He tended to stonewall and fall back on boilerplate a lot. There wasn’t the give and take of a Bill Clinton, Obama or McCain 2000 for that matter.
So just to be clear: I’m saying that you can look at the management of the campaign and learn something useful about the management of the Presidency. It won’t tell you everything and it may even mislead you – I’m just saying that it’s a meaningful signal – a better one than provided by the typical media bloviator or shill.
A superior signal, in my view, relates to the relative honesty of the presentation of policy. George Bush 2000 would give wildly misleading characterizations of the impact of his tax plan on the deficit. This foreshadowed his lack of care and honesty in the policy process, be it fiscal or involving foreign wars.
You’re seeing yet another example of calling those with views you disagree with “extremist” - an ancient tactic, which never works here, but is still used reflexively and thoughtlessly by some.
Hell, even McCain is peddling the “Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate” line (when did Kerry lose the title?), but in his case the claim appears calculated - it isn’t as if he labels *every *Democrat “hard left” or words to that effect. It would be nice not to have to put up with that petty crap here either, but whaddaya gonna do?
By any rational analysis, Clinton governed as an Eisenhower Republican, and knew it himself and admitted as such when pressed. “Hard left”, hah.
One which most Americans quite rightly blame on the Republicans, who took over a surplus budget and went on to triple the debt. So why would you think it works against the Dems politically? Mere hope and fantasy, perhaps?
As opposed to your guy, that is?
He hasn’t been there long enough to piss off everybody, unlike your guy, true.
As opposed to your guys?
Yes, what we need instead is more of what got us here, right?
Nothing he could do would be as socialistic as the Republicans’ nationalization of the mortgage industry and the largest insurance company.
Who, Kucinich? He’s about all there is out there, and he’s not all that far, either.
Your pattern of concern is noted. As is the source.
Definitely. My main problem with Clinton was how center/right he was, and that was my problem with Hillary as well. I’m sick to death of the DLC march to the right, which does little more than cede the center to the Right and re-define the entire political spectrum. I fear that Obama will govern from the center/right as well.
He got elected on the reaction to the Watergate mess. He was an outsider which sounded a whole lot better than the crap that was going on. The Nixon defenders fell back on the idea that “this kind of stuff has been going on all along.” Well, the majority of the American public thought that maybe something could be done to change it. Ergo, an “outsider”.
When Carter was elected the Democratic congress had a solid majority and had become very comfortable in their ongoing power. Carter was an outsider and they were too arrogant to work with him, not recognizing that they were pissing away their capital. The Democrats in congress set the bed for their own downfall.
Carter, as a governor of a southern state was over his head when he took the oath of office. The Presidency is a different job with a whole lot of different responsibilities. It is not a job where you can micromanage, you have to delegate, it’s just too big. You have to have aids and advisers that that you can totally trust. (This is why I really worry about Palin having any connection to the Presidency.)
Carter was/is a very intelligent, decent, ethical man. He was smart enough to learn and adjust to the responsibilities of the Presidency. However, it was too late. By the end of his presidency he was very capable of handling the job but he wasn’t given the chance to see it through. I personally think that the U.S. would have been better off if Carter had been given another four years. The medicine he fed the nation hadn’t been able to take hold.
The knock on the Carter presidency has nothing to do with lack of effort, intelligence, ethics or judgment. It was a confluence of unfortunate timing and short sighted arrogance by several entities. Carter definitely made mistakes but he also got caught in a crossfire that was not of his own making.
The mission would have failed spectacularly had it gone ahead. It’s a lucky break that it did not.
However, Carter earned his reputation for micromanagement; there is a popular story (for which there is evidence) that he personally signed off on White House tennis court reservations. He was, like a lot of people who are Peter Principled, unable to keep his focus on his proper sphere of influence, diving into micromanagement on a frequent basis.
Carter was the first PotUSA in a long time to come straight from a statehouse. It took a while for Congress to get used to someone not from Washington coming in & trying to bully them around. Reagan, Clinton, & W Bush have them well-trained to take direction from some hillbilly governor or another now.
Anyway, neither Obama nor McCain are imported governors. They know Washington & Washington knows them.
That argument sucks. He has been running against powerful Dems for the office for well over a year. He has clawed into the public with endless interviews, debates and TV news shows. We all know who he is. He fought off Hillary, Edwards and many others to win his spot.