GovernmentExecutive.com

The New Yorker’s George Packer jumps into the debate over whether the President’s role is managerial or inspirational this week with a piece contrasting the ways in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama view the presidency. Packer lays out the choice between their approaches starkly when he says that “if this campaign is, among other things, a referendum on the current occupant of the White House—as elections at the end of failed presidencies inevitably are—then its outcome will be determined partly by whether voters find George W. Bush guilty of incompetence or of demeaning American politics.”

It’s a smart, probing piece that focuses more on how Clinton’s managerial style has evolved over time than on Obama’s obvious inspirational gifts, and how those skills for making policy and getting things done translate to the political campaign Clinton is running. Packer uses an interesting variety of examples, including the fight over Bill Clinton's health care bill and the process that Hillary Clinton used to produce her book It Takes a Village, to describe her reluctant journey to the realization that she needs to focus more on humanizing herself and inspiring voters, and that she can’t rely simply on competence and service delivery. It would be interesting to learn more about how Obama arrived at his theory of the president’s role, and to see whether he’s become more or less invested in management and process over time.--Alyssa Rosenberg