Header
Clinton, Obama Put Focus on Management
 By Tom Shoop | Thursday, January 17, 2008  |  09:34 AM

With the race for the Democratic presidential nomination seeming to come down to a choice between Barack Obama's push for change and Hillary Clinton's focus on experienced leadership, an interesting shift has occurred: Suddenly, the issue of managing the federal government has taken center stage. It started on Monday, when Obama, in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, said the following:

I'm not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that's not my job. My job is to set a vision of "here's where the bureaucracy needs to go."

Clinton took issue with that in a Democratic debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas:

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. 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. We've seen the failures with holding the administration accountable with the no-bid contracts and the cronyism. So I do think you have to do both. It's a really hard job, and in America we put the head of state and the head of government together in one person.

But I think you've got to set the tone, you've got to set the vision, you've got to set the goals, you've got to bring the country together. And then you do have to manage and operate and hold that bureaucracy accountable to get the results you're trying to achieve.

Obama responded:

Well, there's no doubt that you've got to be a good manager. And that's not what I was arguing. The point, in terms of bringing together a team, is that you get the best people and you're able to execute and hold them accountable. But I think that there's something, if we're going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time, and you know, and had... You know, I'm sure he never lost a paper. 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. ...

I mean, those are the kinds of failures that have to do with judgment. They have to do with vision, the capacity to inspire people. They don't have to do with whether or not he was managing the bureaucracy properly. That's not to deny that there has to be strong management skills in the presidency. It is to say that what has been missing is the ability to bring people together, to mobilize the country, to move us in a better direction, and to be straight with the American people.

I'm not about to make any kind of endorsement in this race or the Republican one, but I'll acknowledge that I'm already on the record as saying that management really matters. In fact, nine months ago, I noted that it looked like the issue of effectively managing government operations might play a central role in this year's presidential contest, and I've been waiting for it to happen ever since.



Comments


All this effort into convincing yourself of a possible presidents value/values and cpabilities. Give me one that will rein in the power of government, nominate solid conservative justices that know and understand the Constitution as it exists,not as they would interpret it to mean to the judiciary, reduce the average americans debt load from taxes that benefit the wealthy and can find the papers under the table and I'll gladly give them my support. But, if you believe that any of the 3 candidates in the race will meet any of the above criteria then you're not using you're critical thinking skills and are listening to their mouth instead of looking at their actions. Remember what you promised your girlfriend while dating in order to get into her panties...politicians are no different, only instead of 1 piece of tail they want a piece of all of US.

Rick  | Thursday, April 10, 2008 |  01:03 PM


On Obama...
When a campaign lets a supporter go for calling some kids in a tree "monkeys", I'm very fearful for family, friends and America. Really, the big question is - who or what is behind the man ? And where will he try to lead us. So he's a rock star, big deal!

At this point MANAGEMENT is the least important aspect of the candidates.

JD  | Thursday, April 10, 2008 |  10:18 AM


Of course management matters, and that's why the current administration has proven to be so problematic. Mr. Bush is reputed to be very charismatic, and I would not dispute this fact (having never met the man). All that aside, however, the fact is that he is a mediocre manager.

Mediocre managers don't hire superstars, or if they do so (accidentally) the superstars don't stay with them long. The proof of this theory is easily found in the current (and previous) Bush political appointees. Mike Brown, Michael Chertoff, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales, and others, clearly demonstrate the proof of this theory. Each of these individuals may be personally exceptional, but that does not equate to being a good manager. Thus we end up with highly dysfunctional Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, and FEMA.

More to the point, managers should WANT to manage and should at least RESPECT the mission of the respective organizations. What we have, historically seen, from the Republicans (most notably from the current administration) is an extreme dislike for public service and federal employees-while paying lip service to their virtues. In a nutshell, Republicans get elected by claiming that government doesn't work and then, once in office, set about proving that claim. This approach would appear, to me, to be antithetical to achieving the desired end result: A more efficient, more responsive government.

Concerned citizen  | Wednesday, January 23, 2008 |  07:55 AM


Excuse me but what has Obama ever done to actually do something worthwhile for humanity?

What has he ever done to effect Change that has lastest & means something?

What has be done to help the people in IL?

Many of us are clueless here, except we know he is great at talking as a politician... Lots of talk... No action..

IL Chicago Metro resident  | Friday, January 18, 2008 |  04:24 PM


I respectfully disagree with my conservative fellow corespondents. I've voted in every election since Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964, and I've never seen such a bounty of qualified and attractive candidates.

A President must be a great public leader, able to capture and articulate the hopes and dreams of Americans, and to call us to do and dream what we have never dared. George W. Bush has been an abject failure in this part of his job.

At the same time and without doubt, management matters. If the President can't run the government -- as this Administration has so painfully shown -- nothing much can be done.

A good preview of the candidates' management capability is the quality of their campaign teams. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Romney have all done at least a respectable job of this. McCain and Edwards probably would be good if they had the resources. Clinton and Obama are downright impressive.

The Bush Administration values loyalty over competence, and it does not tolerate dissent. These are major leadership failures. None of the major candidates seems to show the same flaws -- at least to the same degree. Let us hope that the new President does not repeat their mistakes.

Bob  | Friday, January 18, 2008 |  01:25 PM


I agree with Dan on the democratic field. I would also say the republicans are not too much better for most of them. There are one or two with some redeeming graces, but that is about all. It is a tough year for really good candidates.

conservative  | Thursday, January 17, 2008 |  06:20 PM


As Mario Cumo said where's the Gravi Tas?? Both of these candidates are light weights and don't belong in the white house. The Democratic field this year is the weakest I have ever seeh

dan ketter  | Thursday, January 17, 2008 |  01:23 PM


I totally agree that management counts.

Let's look at what Obama has done: In less than 1 year he has built an organization that has competed and won against a machine constructed over the last 20 years by a former United States president. Obama has attracted and effectively marshalled over 600,000 new donors to work for the cause of change. He has organized larger, more effective grassroots efforts in more February 5th state than any other candidate. He has raised well over $100,000,000 from small donors who knew nothing about him a few years ago. He has not had to fire multiple campaign workers for sliming his opponent, instead leading by example and giving strong guidance. His campaign messages have been lifted and borrowed by most of the other campaigns, most notably by Senator Clinton's. What happened to "lets have a conversation", or "time to choose a president" or "turn up the heat"? Even the Republicans are talking about change, though that's a stretch for the imagination.

And that's just one year. Imagine what we can get done in 4, no, make it 8 years!

Give me leadership, not micromanagement.

Jennifer  | Thursday, January 17, 2008 |  11:16 AM


It just amazes me that Billery makes the kind of comments she does and her loyal minions accept them and worship at her feet. She is probably well qualified to talk about corruption since she claimes to have gained her exsperience in the most corrupt administration in recent history. I guess, by that standard, she is well qualified to discuss management since she claims a part of the least idealistic administration in history. She very well understands that management is just listening to the polls and doing what will be most popular at the time. Ethics and ideals are something to hold against someone else, not to use in your life, at least, not if you are Billery.

conservative  | Thursday, January 17, 2008 |  11:12 AM



Post a comment



ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


SUBSCRIBE to this blog's RSS feed

ARCHIVES



CATEGORIES