Home

Running a presidential campaign: a good indicator of a future presidency?

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:35am.

With experience being relative, is the smoothness of a well-run campaign a true indicator of a upcoming presidency? -- Chad

In the Obama-Clinton battle that has ensued, one crucial issue that keeps coming to the top is how the campaigns are run.

We have similar candidates with similar stands on a number of issues. This isn't Ronald Reagan vs. George H.W. Bush in 1980, where Bush called Reagan's economic plan, "voodoo economics." Of course, Bush sucked up to Reagan, and adopted not only "voodoo economics" but magically shifted to a pro-life position. Of course, Bush's original 1980 positions were spot-on.

But in one area, the campaigns have been distinct: how their campaigns have been run. Like it or not, the perception of a candidate is centered around how a campaign is run. The "geniuses" who had Michael Dukakis in a tank or John Kerry on skis deserve to be publicly flogged.

And no matter which Democratic presidential candidate you have supported, objectively Obama has run a great campaign and Clinton has run a miserable campaign. Despite this, Clinton has made it close.

But based on the reception we get from our readers, there seems to be either a huge discrepancy of what the candidate is supposed to be responsible for, or people are upset that their candidate messed up and are in denial.

So who is in charge of a campaign? Who makes the ultimate decisions?

These pages have been filled with criticisms of how campaigns are run. We find it audacious that John McCain actively and eagerly sought the endorsement of John Hagee. We find it incredulous that Mark Penn would have a huge conflict of interest: running a major presidential campaign, and meeting (for his day job) with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. over a proposed Colombian free trade agreement, going against the public stated position of the candidate he works for.

Yes, we know candidates can't run a campaign by themselves, especially in the modern era. But they are shooting for the ultimate leadership role: president of the United States. If you can't show leadership in running a presidential campaign, if you don't have the instincts to decide what is right and what is wrong, then people aren't going to look to you for leadership.

It has been difficult for many to look at this race in an objective fashion, but at some point, you have to ask yourself what is best for the campaign. When Samantha Power referred to Hillary Clinton as a "monster," Power knew and the Obama campaign knew it wasn't the right thing for her to stay. Mark Penn has been a disaster for the Clinton campaign on numerous levels. Yet he's still around. And if you are a Clinton supporter, it would be rather difficult to believe you are still a Mark Penn fan.

We have criticized Bush for his obsession for loyalty, but he also uses that in place of actual talent, credibility, and usefulness. The Clinton camp has accused Bill Richardson of being disloyal for his endorsement of Obama. Loyalty in itself is not a bad word or philosophy. But in politics, there is a time where loyalty isn't enough. Many good people have resigned from presidential campaigns over the years because they realize that hanging around hurts a candidate more than it helps.

And it's also leadership that makes tough decisions. Clinton has been criticized for not taking actions against Geraldine Ferraro, and for when she finally did something about Mark Penn, she merely "demoted" him. If you want to argue that Clinton is exhibiting a new kind of leadership by not doing what candidates have done in the past, please make that argument. Just so you know, Clinton isn't making that kind of an argument herself.

Like it or not, American voters make judgments based on how candidates run their campaigns. You are American voters, so how do you see it? Should the candidates be judged on how they run their campaigns? Should they be accountable for every little thing every advocate or supporter says? And does a well-run campaign translate to success in the White House?

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

Running a campaign

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 11:40pm.

Running a smooth campaign is hardly the single best criterion for choosing a president. One can imagine, and probably find examples of, well-run campaigns by candidates whose views and policies one might not like.

That being said, it has struck me all along that Clinton's assertion that she was the candidate with the experience that would make her best able to govern from "day one" was at odds with the problems her campaign has had. Obama's campaign has been described as well run with strong grass roots organizations in the competitive states. The Clinton campaign has suggested that the caucus system is somehow "unfair" or "not democratic" because they didn't do their homework and apparently were relying on top-down and centralized campaigning. We can see the results of these differences in the Obama campaign's greater fund-raising moxie where they have raised larger amounts by getting many many more small donors. Looks like democracy to me. The Mark Penn disaster is just another example of Clinton's inability to manage her campaign. Why was Penn earning millions from her campaign, as has been reported, while he was still actively working for his lobbying/consulting firm? Why wasn't he donating his time? Just think of how Clinton challenged Obama to dissociate himself from Farakkhan's endorsement while she's paying millions to someone who was giving her bad advice and working publicly against one of major talking points.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

» login or register to post comments

Campaigns are good tests

Submitted by lafrance on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:15pm.
When a senator is running for president the basis measure is how one runs a campaign. It shows the leadership and decision making and ability to make tough calls. Alot of what is used in running a campaign is what a president would use in running the white house. Hillary had everything given to her. A 30 year machine, long time contacts and favors, donors, universal name recognition, ect. Instead of having a rather easy go, she staffed her campaign with old loyal hands who had no background for the jobs they had and loyalty trumphed ability. Infighting of massive individual egos, misspent money and no planning for caucuses or unforeseen crisis. She basically ran her campaign like a publicity tour of a major movie star promoting a movie rather than a serious or professional presidential campaign. whether Hillary's supporters want to accept this or not, is their problem. But, as long they are in denial of how and why Hillary lost and prefer to blame it on media, on Obama for daring to challenge her, ect. But, her supporters are not doing Hillary any favors by being in denial. nor themselves. And after awhile it begins to take on the air of tragic and silly. It's better that this was discovered now then to get their candidate elected under a false idea that Hillary is capable and then, have a repeat of the Bush years. Beset with incompetence. That would do major damage to her for all of history. And the country simply cannot afford this at this time.
» login or register to post comments