Obama's management style weighed at debate

We saw this one coming.

At tonight's debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama got asked about his recent comments to a Nevada newspaper in which he conceded his managerial skills leave something to be desired. And after he answered, Hillary Clinton pounced (somewhat softly, given the amiable tone that marked most of the forum).

Obama essentially stood by his remarks to the Reno Gazette-Journal, saying at the debate that, to him, "being president is not making sure that schedules are being run properly or the paperwork is being shuffled effectively. It involves having a vision for where the country needs to go."

He added: "My desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff."

Clinton had to bide her time, but, while answering a question about her on strengths and weaknesses, she tried to contrast herself with Obama on the management issue. "I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together. But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy."

She then delivered a tougher swipe, not-so-subtlety linking Obama to President Bush's management style. ...

   

"You've got to pick good people, certainly, but you have to hold them accountable every single day. We've seen the results of a president who, frankly, failed at that. You know, he went in to office saying he was going to have the kind of Harvard Business School CEO model where he'd set the tone, he'd set the goals and then everybody else would have to implement it.

"And we saw the failures. We saw the failures along the Gulf Coast with, you know, people who were totally incompetent and insensitive failing to help our fellow Americans. ..."

It was an effective effort by Clinton to draw a distinction with her main rival in the nomination battle (which, after all, is what these debates are supposed to do). It's a distinction we expect the Clinton campaign to call attention to in the weeks to come.

But Obama, to his credit, parried the Bush comparison well, disputing the notion that he and the president shared a management style. In fact, he argued, Bush's techniques proved his point.

"You know, I'm sure he never lost a paper," Obama said, drawing a chuckle from the generally non-emotive crowd. "I'm sure he knows where it is. What he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn't agree with his ideological predispositions. What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together."

We call this exchange a draw.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[PulSamsara]

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

[Tom J]

Well, I can't imagine Obama appointing an ex-Arabian horse show guy (Michael Brown) to be in charge of FEMA. Or (insert appointment of choice here). Or spend so much of his time 'offsite' (i.e., his Texas ranch) letting Cheney run things. Bush wasn't practicing CEO or "hands off management" - other than claiming to be The Decider, he was abrogating his responsibilities. (imo)

Reagan used the CEO model and whatever you think of the results, he did accomplish what he intended to accomplish. So as we say here, "it's the pilot, not the plane".

When Hillary Clinton gave her answer, since she focused on holding people "accountable every single day", skimming over the importance of picking good people, it sounded like she still thinks the job is all about her - she makes all the decisions, tells people what to do, and then checks to make sure they're doing just that. It's all very top-down, old-management style (which goes with her old-politics style, when you think about it).

Good people don't need micro-managing, even if that's what her husband was known for. It also reminded us of the way she herself managed the health care fiasco - which made me wonder if she had really learned all she should have learned from that experience.

I count Obama's community organizing as management experience - he certainly learned how to "get work done through people" - but I find myself questioning just how much management experience Clinton's really had. She talks a lot about her 'experience', but never says just exactly what sort of experience that was. It's all very general.

Considering her answer raised more questions than it answered, I'd say Obama won that one.

[mb]

This is brain surgery- the job description does include CEO responsibilities- We need someone who can make those hard decisions- Voting present might make you the good guy everyone wants to play poker with or a quick game of pick-up but I have friends who can do that I don't need that in a President- I'd much rather have her keeping an eye on the many problems percolating around the globe rather than dividing his time between the Redskins and the Cubs.

[Ronald Loui]

I completely agree with Tom J. If you listen closely, you hear her management style. I know people who have negative things to say about their working with her. I know people who have positive things to say about their working with him. I don't know anyone who has positive things to say about working with her, and I don't know anyone who has negative things to say about working with him. There you go. She describes herself as "impatient" and interested in "holding people accountable". She is a chief of staff, experienced as a chief of staff, and an abrasive one at that. She is not a commander in chief.

[Kiku]

Look to their campaigns and their campaign ethics to see the kind of president they will be.

On Monday, Obama demonstrated that he CAN and DOES diffuse difficult situations. He lifted the Clintons out of the racist charge by saying they have always been on the right side of the issue. They have called him naive, inexperienced, a coward, ambitious, a terrorist, a drug dealer, a fairytale,....That he could then turn around and say to Hillary that she is likeable demonstrates his ability to keep his head high and out of the fray, his ability to bring people together.

At the end, he turned Edwards arugment about their differences into an agreement.

He is showing us that he walks the walk. He has led and set the message for this campaign, his campaign has been ethical, he has been write on the issues showing good judgement.

Hillary's campaign, however, has fired three people, has no message, has made the wrong decisions. To win, she has to disenfranchise voters in NV, buy them off in SC, and harrass Obama's workers in NH.

We will get more of the same, depending on who we elect.

If the camp

[Ronald Loui]

mb -- how is being president like brain surgery? I know a lot of surgeons, too, and you wouldn't want them to be making too many decisions outside of the operating room. For one thing, surgeons like to cut, and they don't often weigh other options like they should. Most of the surgeons I know are pretty bad with money, and really lousy with people. Also, how is the brain surgeon a CEO? Often the surgeon runs his or her own practice, but maybe the hospital administrator or the partners of the group practice have more management duties. If anything, being a highly placed deputy to an undersecretary might be where you start to find brain-surgeon type virtuoso performance skills, whether in the areas of intelligence, negotiation, procurement, resource management, economoic analysis, or personnel. And no, I don't think being president is like rocket science, either.

[Kiku]

Obama's present votes were part of the political voting structure in Illinois. He voted present about 130 times out of 4000 votes. 50 of those votes were with other Democrats as a tactical maneuver. 7 times he voted that way as part of a strategy supported by groups opposing a bill. Sometimes, even for popular bills, he voted present because he felt it was unconstitutional, or he didn't think it would be effective, or he objected to the way the bill was rushed together with no discussion. It may also be used to avoid voting on something that could be politically difficult.

In the US Senate, there is no present vote, but the Senators can simply choose not to vote. For example, a Democrat in a Republican district might not vote on an issue his constituency wouldn't like, if the Congress person sees that the bill will pass without their vote.

This is just Hillary's campaign trying to twist a standard behavior into an attack.

Here's an article that addresses Hillary's use of this as an attack:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS01/801060396/0/FRONTPAGE

[Kiku]

I've culled through several sources on Obama and pulled together a list of his legislative successes. Notable are:

Lugar-Obama: Elimination of nuclear and conventional armaments around the world.

Coburn-Obama: Federal spending transparency.

Feingold and Obama: ethics legislation for congress

His legislation addressed kids and womens health, education, veterans, and alternative energy.

For more, go to:

http://www.kikustuff.blogspot.com/

[Kiku]

I've culled through several sources on Obama and pulled together a list of his legislative successes. Notable are:

Lugar-Obama: Elimination of nuclear and conventional armaments around the world.

Coburn-Obama: Federal spending transparency.

Feingold and Obama: ethics legislation for congress

His legislation addressed kids and womens health, education, veterans, and alternative energy.

For more, go to:

http://www.kikustuff.blogspot.com/

[Richard Andre]

The real democratic front runner will soon be known. And this time, there would be no tears, trick, tactic or fraud.

It is interested to note that NBC went to court to prevent Kucinich appearing on the debate in Nevada. One of the reasons for this censorship is that they are afraid that Kucinich will talk about what happen in New Hampshire. The CNN/Gallup polls were actually accurate; the polls showed that Obama with a lead of 7 points on the eve of New Hampshire primary. Also the exit poll support the same findings that Obama is the winner. Indeed there was a deceit benefiting the so-called surprised winner. Eventually the American people will know the truth, and when the truth reveals the voters’ propensity will clearly go toward the leader with the sound judgment, not the divider. Kucinich really believes that there was a fraud. He supports this belief with hard cash, by paying for the recounts that is now in order. Kucinich believes that Barrack Obama has won the New Hampshire primary; and Hillary Clinton came in second. The Diebold scanning machine were breached For instance, technicians who support the Diebold machines were allowed to break the security seal to change the memory card on the scanning machine during the Election Day under the pretense that the Diebold machine broke down. There seems to be evidence that the surprise winner got a bump of +4.5% and the second candidate’s vote counts were subtracting by 2.5%

[Richard Andre]

The Clintons used the same old strategy. They lie. They are not honest. The will say anything to win the nomination. They have no ethical value. Things that Bill Clinton did in the white house as president that has lead to the prelude of his impeachment, was so bad, I do not even know how to explain it to my 6 year old. Precisely, what I am refereeing here is the need to be candid under all circumstances. They used all kinds of tricks, tears and anger to manipulate the media and scare up votes. This is disgraceful. I know that Bill wants to finish his legacy, but he needs to conduct the campaign in a way that is conducive to respect, and civility.

Here is the current strategy -- Bill goes loose and says anything that he wants including distortion to derail Obama off his message. In the meantime, Hillary will have more time to talk about the economy and her mandating health care system, similar to the ones implemented by governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts before his departure. People in Massachusetts, who cannot pay for their heating bill, would rather pay the current fine because it is less than buying a health insurance premium. Forcing people to pay a fine and yet calling the plan, universal heath insurance, sounds more like a great euphemism to me. This sounds just like as a real fairy tale to me; give me a break. Our problem will not be solved until we remove the lobbyists in Washington. The previous attempt to solve the healthcare crisis was done behind closed doors. The second attempt will be a mandating health care plan to force people who can’t afford it to pay additional fees. She may as well choose the previous governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, as a running mate, for they have the same health care plan.

The strategy outlined above may win the nomination, but it will lose the election.
1. The Clintons are working vigorously to put a wall – calling Obama “young African American.
2. This morning, she called him a frustrated young man
3. The Clinton purposely lied to provoke Obama and to derail him off his message.
Please Obama do no let this only hope dies.
Without Obama, there is no more interest in politic on the democratic side. Without Obama, there is no surge in voting registration. Without Obama, there is no full auditorium with thousand and thousands followers. Without Obama, there is no more reason to believe in again. Without Obama, the Tiger Woods analogy ceases to make sense – he made golf interested to young people as Obama make politic interested to college kids across the country. Without Obama, citizens would stop changing party affiliation from republican and independent to become democrats. Without Obama, we are back to the same food fight – red and blue state again -- Red for republican and blue for democrats.
Please don’t let the status quo blocks the change movement and derail Obama off the message to unite America and heal the nation – Please let be honest!!!
“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America.”

[bhattathiri mp]

Excellent article. Obama'sart of Management has become a part and parcel of everyday life, be it at home, in the office or factory and in Government. In all organizations, where a group of human beings assemble for a common purpose irrespective of caste, creed, and religion, management principles come into play through the management of resources, finance and planning, priorities, policies and practice. Management is a systematic way of carrying out activities in any field of human effort. Management need to focus more on leadership skills, e.g., establishing vision and goals, communicating the vision and goals, and guiding others to accomplish them. It also assert that leadership must be more facilitative, participative and empowering in how visions and goals are established and carried out. Some people assert that this really isn't a change in the management functions, rather it's re-emphasizing certain aspects of management.
Its task is to make people capable of joint performance, to make their weaknesses irrelevant, says the Management Guru Peter Drucker. It creates harmony in working together - equilibrium in thoughts and actions, goals and achievements, plans and performance, products and markets. It resolves situations of scarcity, be they in the physical, technical or human fields, through maximum utilization with the minimum available processes to achieve the goal. Lack of management causes disorder, confusion, wastage, delay, destruction and even depression. Managing men, money and materials in the best possible way, according to circumstances and environment, is the most important and essential factor for a successful management.

[bhattathiri]

Mr. Obama's art of Management has become a part and parcel of everyday life, be it at home, in the office or factory and in Government. In all organizations, where a group of human beings assemble for a common purpose irrespective of caste, creed, and religion, management principles come into play through the management of resources, finance and planning, priorities, policies and practice. Management is a systematic way of carrying out activities in any field of human effort. Management need to focus more on leadership skills, e.g., establishing vision and goals, communicating the vision and goals, and guiding others to accomplish them. It also assert that leadership must be more facilitative, participative and empowering in how visions and goals are established and carried out. Some people assert that this really isn't a change in the management functions, rather it's re-emphasizing certain aspects of management.
Its task is to make people capable of joint performance, to make their weaknesses irrelevant, says the Management Guru Peter Drucker. It creates harmony in working together - equilibrium in thoughts and actions, goals and achievements, plans and performance, products and markets. It resolves situations of scarcity, be they in the physical, technical or human fields, through maximum utilization with the minimum available processes to achieve the goal. Lack of management causes disorder, confusion, wastage, delay, destruction and even depression. Managing men, money and materials in the best possible way, according to circumstances and environment, is the most important and essential factor for a successful management.

[bhattathiri]

Obama's art of Management has become a part and parcel of everyday life, be it at home, in the office or factory and in Government. In all organizations, where a group of human beings assemble for a common purpose irrespective of caste, creed, and religion, management principles come into play through the management of resources, finance and planning, priorities, policies and practice. Management is a systematic way of carrying out activities in any field of human effort. Management need to focus more on leadership skills, e.g., establishing vision and goals, communicating the vision and goals, and guiding others to accomplish them. It also assert that leadership must be more facilitative, participative and empowering in how visions and goals are established and carried out. Some people assert that this really isn't a change in the management functions, rather it's re-emphasizing certain aspects of management.
Its task is to make people capable of joint performance, to make their weaknesses irrelevant, says the Management Guru Peter Drucker. It creates harmony in working together - equilibrium in thoughts and actions, goals and achievements, plans and performance, products and markets. It resolves situations of scarcity, be they in the physical, technical or human fields, through maximum utilization with the minimum available processes to achieve the goal. Lack of management causes disorder, confusion, wastage, delay, destruction and even depression. Managing men, money and materials in the best possible way, according to circumstances and environment, is the most important and essential factor for a successful management.