On MSNBC, Corke and Cillizza falsely claimed NV paper quoted Obama admitting he lacks "experience" to "run a bureaucracy" and "be a CEO"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, anchor Kevin Corke falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "said he doesn't have the, quote, 'experience to run a bureaucracy.' " Corke was apparently referring to a Reno Gazette-Journal article that reported, "Obama freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy"; however, the newspaper did not quote Obama saying he lacks the "experience to run a bureaucracy."
On the January 15 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Kevin Corke falsely claimed that "[Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] said he doesn't have the, quote, 'experience to run a bureaucracy.' " In fact, while the January 14 Reno Gazette-Journal article that Corke appeared to be referencing asserted that Obama "freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy," contrary to Corke's claim, the paper does not actually quote Obama admitting he lacks the "experience to run a bureaucracy." Rather, according to the Gazette-Journal, Obama said: "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.' "
After misrepresenting Obama's remarks, Corke then asked washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza: "I'm just wondering, is there any risk in saying something like that? I mean, let's face it. Isn't our government a bureaucracy to begin with?" Cillizza responded, in part, that "any time [Obama is] on the record in an early-state newspaper saying, "Well, I don't have the experience to be a CEO,' it probably doesn't help his campaign." In his response, Cillizza not only misquoted Obama like Corke did, but Cillizza also falsely asserted that Obama said he would not be a suitable CEO. In fact, while the Gazette-Journal article reported that Obama is "banking on the fact voters aren't looking for a 'chief operating officer' in this election," and quoted Obama as saying he's "not an operating officer," the article did not indicate that Obama discussed his ability to serve as a CEO.
A January 15 blog post by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith also highlighted the Gazette-Journal article, but did not note that the article failed to support it's assertion that Obama "freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy."
The MSNBC roundtable also included Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the January 15 edition of MSNBC Live:
CORKE: Chris, you know, while talking to the Reno Gazette-Journal, Barack Obama said he doesn't have the, quote, "experience to run a bureaucracy and that Americans aren't looking for a chief operating officer." I'm just wondering, is there any risk in saying something like that? I mean, let's face it. Isn't our government a bureaucracy to begin with?
CILLIZZA: Well, you know, Kevin, the risk I think is that Barack Obama has to be careful of not playing into the stereotype about him, which is that he's a great speaker; he's very charismatic; he's a good leader; but he doesn't have the experience. So any time he's on the record in an early-state newspaper saying, "Well, I don't have the experience to be a CEO," it probably doesn't help his campaign. I mean, I think what he wants to focus on is "Do I have Washington experience? No, I don't, but we don't need Washington experience. We need someone who is ready to change things, who can bring about change to Washington." I'm sure that's what he meant in a broader context. But remember, when candidates speak in those kind of parsed words, unfortunately it gets taken out of context or it's used in different ways, and that will likely come back to haunt Obama in some way, shape, or form, especially if he winds up being the nominee.
CORKE: That's right -- especially also if the economy continues to slide or falter at all. People will get nervous about something like that. Jon, let me ask you about [Democratic presidential candidate] John Edwards, the sometimes forgotten candidate.
From the January 14 Reno Gazette-Journal article:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy.
But he's banking on the fact voters aren't looking for a "chief operating officer" in this election.
"I have a pretty good sense of my strengths and my weaknesses," he said today during a meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board.
"I am very good at teasing out from people who are smarter than me what the issues are and how we resolve them," he said. "I don't think there is anybody in this race who can inspire the American people better than I can. And I don't think there is anybody in this race who can bridge differences ... better than I can.
"But 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.' "
The final days of the Nevada caucus largely have come down to who has the experience, who can bring about change or whether one candidate can do both.
Obama spent the day traveling Northern Nevada to rebut rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's argument that he doesn't have the substance to back up pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
"You got to ask yourself, 'who is best equipped to bring about this change you are hoping for?' " he told a rally of more than 1,100 people at the Reno Events Center. "Hope is not being ignorant of the roadblocks that stand in your way.
"I know how hard it is going to be to provide health care to every American ... to fix our schools or reduce poverty. I know because I fought these fights."
[...]
Obama did not use his stump speech to attack Clinton.
But in a 40-minute round-table discussion before the Reno rally he blamed the nation's housing slump and accompanying foreclosure crisis, which has hit Nevada harder than any other state, on Washington, D.C., leaders who listened more to lobbyists than their constituents.
"Ten of the country's largest mortgage lenders spent $185 million lobbying Washington so they could keep engaging in these destructive practices," he said. "And they got what they paid for."
His chin resting on one hand, Obama listened to the stories of struggle from the four Reno residents at the table with him, interspersing the discussion with points from his economic plan.
He wants to provide tax credits to stimulate the economy, revise bankruptcy laws to protect people from losing their homes and create a foreclosure fund to aid those who can no longer afford their mortgages.
At one point, Obama wrapped his arm around the shoulder of Skye Steffens as she told of a traffic accident that seriously injured her husband soon after he was treated for cancer.
"You've had your share," he said. "I don't think anything else is allowed to go wrong for the next four or five decades."
Look Obama is objectively not qualified to run a company considering he has never run anything before. With that being said, Cillizza is a joke and is usually wrong on everything.
More to the point though, the fundamental element of his quote reveals his approach to leadership. He's a delegater an that's a perfectly reasonable approach to leadership.
I do appreciate his vision of an inspired, participatory citizenry. I do not, however, believe his conciliatory manner is effective. We have seen how Republicans compromise and big money negotiates. But I don't really see him pointing out the conservative failures or the cruelty of unregulated capitalism anyway. Basically, he doesn't inspire much, he's John Kerry Lite.
While it's true that Obama didn't say he lacks experience, the real problem is that he thinks that running a "bureaucracy" is not a real part of a president's job.
His was a stupid comment regardless of how it was misinterpreted. His own words are just as bad.
Obama has made a real ignoramus of himself here-- lionizing the "vision thing-- and that's the more important issue.
By modern understandings of management structure, the job of the CEO is to set the "vision of where the bureaucracy needs to go" while the day-to-day "running" of it is not.
The idea that any one person could "run" or directly oversee the operations of a bureaucracy of the size of the executive branch of the federal government is frankly inane. What's really needed is the ability to choose solid lower-level managers and effectively delegate authority.
Which means, in sum, this is another one of those cases - and I expect it won't be the last - where a public figure says something that is actually true but is still a political boner because it doesn't match our fantasies.
And then we wonder why peddlers of conventional wisdom get labeled "straight shooters."
All CEO's run bureaucracies. The petty details are a vital, daily part of the job. Have you ever worked in corporate headquarters, or seen the kind of detail these guys do? Ther are day to day managers.
You're confusing the CEO with Boards of Directors.
All CEO's run bureaucracies. The petty details are a vital, daily part of the job.
CEOs "are responsible for the performance of an organization as a whole. They pay special attention to the external environment, are alert to potential long-run problems and opportunities, and develop appropriate ways of dealing with them. The best top managers are future-oriented strategic thinkers who make many decisions under highly competitive and uncertain conditions. They scan the environment, create and communicate long-term vision, and ensure that strategies and objectives are consistent with the organization's purpose and mission." - Management, by John Schermerhorn, 8th edition, 2006
It's absolutely vital that the president be a details person who knows all aspects of government-- that's why the Bill Clinton era was such a success. A president must be a policy wonk.
Obama's comment-- and his later admission that he can't find a paper clip-- was inane. It marks him as the lightweight that he is, and I guarantee you that if he's the nominee, all you'll see on FOX and the other networks is this statement of his, over and over again.
And it will work.
I disagree with everything you've said, carlile. The double distortion of Obama's comments by the newspaper and by MSNBC is extremely significant not only because it is so glaring, but also because you can almost guarantee that what will be used against Obama in the future are not his actual words--which unlike you I could not conceive the press or public give two whits about--but instead it will be his "admission" that he did not have the experience to run the government that will be remembered.
What will happen is that Obama's comments about his lack of attention to details will be used against him during a final campaign. The MSM or whoever won't have to misrepresent his words, they'll just play his comments about hiring other people.
It was foolish for Obama to highlight his ideas here-- they come off like weakness and superficiality, fair or not (though I know that CEO's have to be detail people too.)
president ... details person who knows all aspects of government ... must be a policy wonk
Speaking of confusion, you're confusing a policy wonk with someone who knows how government works and both of those with a day-to-day details manager.
The last president we had who thought he could personally manage the operations of the executive branch - and learned to his chagrin that it was not possible but never learned how to delegate authority well - was Jimmy Carter. That failing is likely a good part of the reason his presidency floundered.
All Senator Obama has to do is start using this comment of his more often and people will know exactly what he meant:
" There have been some who say … ‘He may be inspiring and you like his ideas but you know what, he has not been in Washington long enough. We need to season him a little bit more. We need to stew him and boil all the hope out of him so he can sound like everybody else.’”
A leader has vision; a bureaucratic runs an office. Let's elect a leader.
I think Obama's definition of the role of the President was the most succinct and best I've heard in a long run.
Bush indeed was a CEO but a horrible one ~ he hired incompetent management people and didn't hold them accountable for their management and effectiveness which is one of the functions of a CEO. His "Good job Brownie" is a classic example of not only putting an incompetent in a critically important position but he praised his incompetence on worldwide TV.
During the debate Obama called Clinton on her comment that his description of his role was what we have in Bush. He pointed out what everyone assumed ~ as a CEO he would hire highly qualified people with good management skills and then hold them accountable.
The fact that he wants to be handed a paper just before he needs it is not an indictment of his readiness to be President. I've worked for CEO's who managed their own paperwork beautifully but were not competent to make sure the organizations goals and objectives were met. I've also worked for CEO's who relied one support staff to handle the paperwork for him and they inspired staff and knew much more than might be apparent as to the subject under discussion.
This country needs a President who can in Obama's words, "set the vision of where this country needs to go" and then hire competent staff to make it happen!
This reminds me of the, I'm paraphrasing here, infamous: ...My opponent is talking about social security as if it were some type of government program...
Suggesting that social security is not a government program is equivalent to suggesting that "the job of the president" is not "to go in and run some bureaucracy"
What's good for the goose is good for the gander!