How’s that executive experience going, Obama?
Obama recently compared his own executive experience favorably to Palin’s. He’s run a big campaign, he said, and she was mayor of a small town.
This conveniently leaves out a few details—that he has a campaign manager, and that her most recent job description was actually governor. But let’s just take him at his word for a moment and see how that campaign of his is actually going right now.
Turns out that one of his biggest decisions, when he opted out of public financing and broke a few vows in the process, may not have been such a wise move after all.
It seemed worth it back then, when the money was flowing in to Obama at record rates and poor old John McCain could barely rattle a tin cup on a streetcorner. But now it seems that the worm has turned; today the NY Times features an article with the alarming headline, “Straining to Reach Goal, Obama Presses Donors.”
The manager of Obama’s campaign, whether it’s Obama or his actual manager David Axelrod, may have made a bad call on this one:
After months of record-breaking fund-raising, a new sense of urgency in Senator Barack Obama’s fund-raising team is palpable as the full weight of the campaign’s decision to bypass public financing for the general election is suddenly upon it.
Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”
It’s not just that Clinton supporters have forked over less dough to Obama than he’d imagined they would, although that’s the case. It’s that the Republican Party funds that McCain draws from by opting for public financing have benefited from an infusion of fresh energy, and Obama now needs to spend time raising his own funds while McCain doesn’t.
Once again, it looks as though John McCain made the right executive decision—not only in terms of keeping his word, but for practical reasons as well. Obama hasn’t.
But maybe next time Obama’s asked about his executive experience, he can go into some details about his role as chairman of the board in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
[ADDENDUM: Was McCain right on Freddie, as well?]
Building an effective staff is the first key to management. It is not easy and needs “experience”. I suspect Obama’s campaign staff did not have clear job definitions (fundraising, organization, etc.) and may not have been confident enough to raise the what if questions.
They seemed unprepared for Palin, yet she was on the radar of the GOP for a long time. They knew that experience was an issue but seemed to spend no time in Denver addressing this. A few testimonials from former co-workers would have done a lot of good for him.
A president who can pick a good cabinet, win their loyalty and get them to work together shows real experience.
As much as I feel McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, it nevertheless did reform (aka “change”) campaign financing. That BHO opted out is simple further evidence he’s just another Chicago machine politico.
McCain was right about Fannie and Freddy as far as mismanagement and using the GSEs for political purposes to primarily benefit the dems.
From all the wild statements I have seen and heard about Fannie and Freddie I think few really understand the functions of these two entities. I hear it said that they “guarantee” trillions in mortgages. There is no guarantee. What they have is trillions of dollars in mortgages, most of which are sound and performing normally. They have 3% of loans that are sub-prime. No one knows whether all those will default. It seems the assumption is that they will. That is not an unmanageable problem. And the tax payers will not be on the hook for those losses. It appears that the Fed will loan them money at low interest rates to get the mortgage markets moving again. If they do buy conservatively structured mortgages with that money there is no reason why the Fed won’t get the money back over time. Mortgages are long term instrument, this will not be a short term program.
The bad thing at these two GSEs was that they vastly over compensated their managements, used millions for lobbying (why??), and used employment there as political gifts to favored (mostly dems) people. Thus, hundreds of millions were raked off the top of these cash cows.
IMO the takeover was done because there was still too much lack of confidence in the mortgage markets. Our financial system runs on confidence. Imagine what would happen if confidence was lost in the credit card system. Or, even worse, in the banking system. It would make the depression look like a picnic.
The functions these two entities provide in the mortgage markets has made home ownership possible for many millions more people. But they have not been, at least as far as I know, involved in large scale sub-prime loans. The sub-prime problem is more in the Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) which are held by banks, hedge funds, insurance companies, pension funds, etc. There have been huge write downs on those by all these financial institutions and that is what has poisoned the mortgage market well of confidence.
McCain is probably right that these GSEs should be broken up into smaller entities and privatized so they cannot be manipulated by feckless management and so large that failure would bring down the credit markets on a global scale.
The recent release of Woodward’s new book, “The War Within,” and several reviews of this book, show Bush’s “executive ability” in a much better light than seen the last few years. He had to fight to get his generals to fight; one reviewer compares him to Lincoln with McClelland!
How would Obama do in a fight with his military to get them to fight a battle they didn’t want to fight? Would he have a Democratic Senator pushing him to win? Why would anyone take him seriously?
Ozyripus: can you give a link to the review that compares him to Lincoln? Thanks.
I had the impression that Obama was burning through money a few months ago, when it seemed that people couldn’t throw it at him fast enough.
That too bespeaks poor management: the failure to anticipate that things can change, and that money frittered away in May might be come in very handy in September.
Things can change again, back in his favor, but time is running out. In addition, people want to back a winner; nothing puts them off like desperation and panic.
Hey, when you gotta press your homeboys for teh cash while an old man raises a mountain of it in your own backyard…”How’s that executive experience going, Obama?” is EXACTLY the right question.
The long primary fight likely drained a lot of the cash off. Many sources may actually be tapped out at this time, as it isn’t in their budgets to give any more money.
I don’t think that was truly taken into account as it should have been.
I saw it in todays WSJ. William McGurn, “Generals Behaving Badly” link
If the link doesn’t work, here’s the relevant portion(everything below is from McGurn):
When Abraham Lincoln famously sent word to Gen. George McClellan that he’d like to “borrow” the army if the general wasn’t planning on using it, the commander of Union forces likely did not take it kindly. McClellan, after all, was a man whose letters home referred to Lincoln as an “idiot,” “a well-meaning baboon” and other colorful language.
In the first few pages of “The War Within,” Bob Woodward opens with another presidential remark that offended another wartime general. This time the recipient was the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey. During a videoconference with Baghdad, the president said, “George, we’re not playing for a tie. I want to make sure we all understand this.” Gen. Casey, Mr. Woodward writes, took this as “an affront to his dignity that he would long remember.”
Whether or not Gen. Casey long remembered, “The War Within” makes clear his disdain for his commander in chief. If the views and remarks attributed to Gen. Casey are not accurate, Mr. Woodward has done him a grave injustice. If they are accurate, they come as further evidence of the obstacles President George W. Bush had to overcome to get his commanders to start winning in Iraq.
Opening with Gen. Casey also says something about Mr. Woodward. There’s a case, I suppose, for using the general who opposed the surge to open what is hailed as the definitive account of that surge (not to mention using Robert McNamara, the Defense secretary who helped lose Vietnam to end the book). Surely, however, that would be the same case for wrapping the definitive account of the strategy that brought Robert E. Lee to Appomattox around Gen. McClellan.
Gen. Casey, after all, was the commander who all along maintained that the solution in Iraq was for America to draw down its forces — even after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. He was the commander who later that year was given his own chance to secure Baghdad with Operations Together Forward I and II, and failed. Most of all, he is the commander who was wrong when the president was right to insist that Baghdad could be secured and al Qaeda dealt a harsh blow with more troops.
Gen. Casey’s continued adherence to a failed strategy does not make him a dishonorable man. It does make him an odd choice to serve as the foundation for the charge that the president was out of touch with the war.
Re: Mikey NTH –
Taken into account by whom? Mr. Obama certainly should have. He appears to have not done that.
Taken into account by Neoneo? Not a chance. She made the right call on Mr. Obama’s “judgement”.
He’s another Bill Clinton, who was also widely lauded for his alleged “brilliance”, although I never saw any actual EXAMPLES of it. It just ain’t so. Eloquence and charm are NOT brilliance.
My copy of the NY Times had a disgraceful front page article: “Forgoing Subsidy, Obama Team Presses Donor.”
Shameless.
Truth is, he scorned the reform of “clean” public campaign finance. Spat on it.
Now the Times spins it like he’s too proud to take a handout, and instead works real hard…
Pingback:ZEITGEIST
neo: I believe the link you seek is this from the Wall Street Journal: Generals Behaving Badly by William McGurn
Actually, I don’t think so. Donations to his campaign have increased every month up to August (August figures not yet available), and he’s set records for fundraising.
Here’s where I think the “I’ve run my presidential campaign” comparison falls flat when put up against running a government. The campaign exists solely to serve Obama. That’s its raison d’etre. In other words, it’s full of Obama “yes men”, and rightly so. He can fire anyone he wants at any time, reassign them, whatever because they serve at his pleasure.
Running a government is completely (or quite significantly) different. A government and bureaucracy is full of competing interest groups, cliques, and power centers. Not everyone is on the same page or after the same goals. The president does not have carte blanche to fire anyone at any time (just ask those agitating about the U.S. attorney firing “scandal”). And that’s without even mentioning that there’s a Congress and a Supreme Court to deal with who certainly are not there to roll over for the president at any given moment.
Running a government is 10 times more complex (including the government of Alaska) than running a campaign where everyone is there to serve your interests. Obama is foolish to make that analogy.
How interesting! Maybe we should be tougher on all of our politicians.. Personally there isn’t a single candidate that has run in the last 20 years thats worth a damn..
I am getting rather tired of all the liars and politicians out to line their own pockets!
McCain/Palin Political Ad
Running a government is 10 times more complex (including the government of Alaska) than running a campaign where everyone is there to serve your interests. Obama is foolish to make that analogy.
Yup. Even if he ran it alone.
Even if you grant Obama his assertion that running his campaign counts for executive experience, there is still a 900 pound question sitting on the sofa:
Senator O, are you asserting that you have no executive experience before running for president (none apparently worth mentioning anyway)?
It is my humble opinion, that History will recognise that G. W. Bush has been a much more effective President than has been “ranted” by the Liberial Anti-War crowd for the past six years.
IMHO!!
Dear Neo,
I have been saying for months that a lot of his contributions were not pro Obama but rather ant-Hillary. The August totals may be interesting.
This is a piece by me, published by American Thinker, that explains my reasoning.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/a_democratic_year.html
Regards,
Roy
Thanks be to Lenin.
I think that their August numbers will be their highest yet. Just saying.
Then Out Spake Brave W
Players:
Sextus: jointly played by Sen. Obama and Sen. Reid
Foes: intelligentsia, left, and media
Townspeople: right blogs and milblogs
Woman: Ann Coulter
Child: Piper Palin
Consul: V.P. Cheney
Horatius: Pres. Bush
Spurious Lartius: Sen. McCain
Herminius: Gen. Patraeus
XXV.
But when the face of Sextus
was seen among the foes,
A yell that rent the firmament from all the town arose.
On the house-tops was no woman but spat toward him and hissed,
No child but screamed out curses, and shook its little fist.
XXVI.
But the Consul’s brow was sad, and the Consul’s speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall, and darkly at the foe.
“Their van will be upon us before the bridge goes down;
And if they once might win the bridge, what hope to save the town?”
XXVII.
Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
more
Pingback:Judicious Asininity
To the Doc:
Neo carefully calibrates her subject matter to provide both qualitative and quantitative contribution for discussion by her many readers, as well as some fun surprise-topic entries for variety and edification.
Most readers comply with sometimes off-the-cuff, but neverthe less usually thoughtful commentary.
First amendment guarantees you free speech rights, and tho’ I speak for myself, I would guess that your immature photoshop contributions might find a more receptive audience on Huffington Post or Daily Kos where they might be more appreciated, where inane humor trumps thought and ideas.
I wonder whether some people may feel that Obama wasted their donations on his magical mystery tour of Europe. If so, they won’t appreciate being bullied into giving more.
Pingback:Sierra Faith
Neo,
You summed up Th Anointed One’s executive experience accurately with
is on.
Additionally, there’s this local tidbit that I haven’t seen elsewhere, yet.
Just my guess, but I think we’ve only seen the beginning of the mudslinging. The democrats don’t care if it backfires because they don’t have anything else of substance to run on and the constant barrage of mud keeps folks’ mind off of looking too closely at Obama.
In 2004 when the democrats trotted Kerry out during the convention to ‘report for duty’ and every dead veteran was spinning in his grave, that they couldn’t get any lower. How mistaken I was.
It’s sad really. There are serious issues that need to be addressed and very few are talking about them.
An amusing thing about running his campaign being “sufficient” means that every single presidential candidate has enough as they have *all* run campaigns. So there is no way that one can not be unqualified – even me (a software engineer) would have sufficient executive experience were I on the ticket.
I may, or may not, make a good president. That is true of nearly everyone. However I couldn’t call myself “experienced” in executive matters from just that.
Of course Obama and his camp understand this perfectly well – all the people they complain about not having any executive experience (that has also been leveled at McCain) have at least the same as Obama – they have ran a campaign yet they will not count that for others.
The other candidates were never stupid enough to tout running for office as “executive experience”. He would have been much better off to accept it and point out the sillyness inherent in that argument (most presidents didn’t have much either). He allowed the McCain camp to maneuver him and set the stage to where they wanted.
If elected I shudder to think what he will say and do with other world leaders along those lines. McCain is only out to win an election, allowing that to occur in a conflict where the other side is trying to kill you almost always results in death. Imagine Iran, North Korea, China, and a number of other countries able to force Obama into arguing the way they want about what they want and how they want – we loose. Sadly McCain isn’t really that good at forcing that either – just Obama is *really* terrible about it. However McCain at least usually recognizes that it is occurring and doesn’t fall for it.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
Obama going back on his word? His whole campaign is being run under false pretenses. It really isn’t his fault…it’s the blind faith from his supporters that he is going to save the world, the economy, withdrawl from the middle east and give everyone free healthcare as well as women, booze and lots of money. If anyone is actually paying attention, he no longer wants to leave Iraq unless we set a date and he wants to move all of our military strength to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not to mention: He supported the bailout, meaning that he really doesn’t care about the future of our country. Is he the knight in shinning armour that we all want him to be? Nope…just a politician that will do whatever they can to win office so they can please their special interest groups.