About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fineman falsely asserted Obama "admitt[ed] he can't manage his way out of a paper bag" during Las Vegas debate

January 16, 2008 9:34 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman falsely claimed during MSNBC's coverage following the January 15 Democratic presidential candidates debate in Las Vegas that Sen. Barack Obama "admitt[ed] that he can't manage his way out of a paper bag while he's running for president of the United States."

36 Comments

During MSNBC's coverage following the January 15 Democratic presidential candidates debate in Las Vegas, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman asserted, "What saves [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] is that he's such a likable guy that even when he's admitting that he can't manage his way out of a paper bag while he's running for president of the United States, everybody likes him." In fact, while Obama did discuss a statement he made that appeared in a January 14 Reno Gazette-Journal article in which he said that he is "not an operating officer," he did not "admit[]" during the debate that he "can't manage his way out of a paper bag."

Citing the quote in the Gazette-Journal article, NBC's Meet the Press host Tim Russert asked Obama, "Do the American people want someone in the Oval Office who is an operating officer?" Obama replied, "Well, I think what I was describing was how I view the presidency." He continued:

OBAMA: Now, 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. It involves having the capacity to bring together the best people and being able to spark the kind of debate about how we're going to solve health care; how we're going to solve energy; how we are going to deliver good jobs and good wages; how we're going to keep people in their homes, here in Nevada; and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change. That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the past. That's the kind of leadership that I intend to show as president of the United States.

Later in the debate, when Russert asked the candidates about their "greatest strength" and "greatest weakness," Obama said, "My greatest strength, I think, is the ability to bring people together from different perspectives, to get them to recognize what they have in common and to move people in a different direction. And as I indicated before, my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it because I will lose it." He added, "I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we've run not only a good campaign, but a good U.S. Senate office. "

In the Gazette-Journal article, Obama is quoted as saying: "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 article began by stating that Obama "freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy," but did not actually quote Obama admitting he lacks the "experience to run a bureaucracy." Similarly, Obama did not admit during the debate that he "can't manage his way out of a paper bag."

Earlier in the day, on MSNBC Live, anchor Kevin Corke apparently referenced the Gazette-Journal article in falsely claiming that "Barack Obama said he doesn't have the, quote, 'experience to run a bureaucracy.' "

From the 12 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 16 post-debate coverage:

MATTHEWS: Well, before "Kumbaya" becomes the theme here, I want to ask Howard why on God's earth would the two candidates who are not doing so well right this moment -- and it changes moment to moment -- Barack Obama and John Edwards, why would they agree to a cease-fire, as you put it, a status quo ante Philadelphia? Why would you accept going back to the period in which Hillary owned this nomination? Howard Fineman.

FINEMAN: Well, part of the problem is that if Obama and Edwards both do that, it redounds to Hillary's benefit. That's what happened in New Hampshire. They can't --

MATTHEWS: Right, right, bull's-eye, 99 percent of the truth. But then why are they doing it?

FINEMAN: Well, they can't both do it. What they'd like to happen, Obama and Edwards would both like the other guy to be the one attacking Hillary. And because they both shied away from it tonight, Hillary could do all those beautiful maneuvers that she did, including getting Obama to agree to co-sponsor a piece of legislation. That was a brilliant little tactical maneuver. Hillary won this on debating points, debating points tonight and tactical maneuvers. What saves Obama is that he's such a likable guy that even when he's admitting that he can't manage his way out of a paper bag while he's running for president of the United States, everybody likes him. I mean, it's just remarkable. It's just amazing.

From the January 15 Democratic presidential candidates debate:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you gave an interview to the Reno Gazette-Journal and you said, "We all have strengths and weaknesses." You said one of your weaknesses is, quote, "I'm not an operating officer." Do the American people want someone in the Oval Office who is an operating officer?

OBAMA: Well, I think what I was describing was how I view the presidency.

Now, 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. It involves having the capacity to bring together the best people and being able to spark the kind of debate about how we're going to solve health care; how we're going to solve energy; how we are going to deliver good jobs and good wages; how we're going to keep people in their homes, here in Nevada; and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.

That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the past. That's the kind of leadership that I intend to show as president of the United States. And so what's needed is sound judgment; a vision for the future; the capacity to tap into the hopes and dreams of the American people and mobilize them to push aside those special interests, and lobbyists, and forces that are standing in the way of real change; and making sure that you have a government that reflects the decency and the generosity of the American people. That's the kind of leadership that I believe I can provide.

RUSSERT: You said each of you have strengths and weaknesses. I want to ask each of you quickly: your greatest strength, your greatest weakness?

OBAMA: My greatest strength, I think, is the ability to bring people together from different perspectives, to get them to recognize what they have in common and to move people in a different direction.

And as I indicated before, my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it because I will lose it. You know, the -- you know --

[laughter]

OBAMA: -- and my desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial; I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we've run not only a good campaign, but a good U.S. Senate office.

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, greatest strength, greatest weakness?

EDWARDS: I think my greatest strength is that for 54 years, I've been fighting with every fiber of my being. In the beginning, the fight was for me. Growing up in mill towns and mill villages, I had to literally fight to survive.

But then I spent 20 years in courtrooms fighting for children and families against really powerful, well-financed interests. I learned from that experience, by the way, that if you're tough enough, and you're strong enough, and you got the guts, and you're smart enough, you can win. That's a fight that can be won. It can be won in Washington, too, by the way. And I've continued that fight my entire time in public life.

So I've got what it takes inside to fight on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the middle class.

I think weakness, I sometimes have a very powerful emotional response to pain that I see around me. When I see a man like Donnie Ingram, who I met a few months ago in South Carolina, who worked for 33 years in the mill, reminded me very much of the kind of people that I grew up with, who's about to lose his job, has no idea where he's going to go, what he's going to do.

I mean, his dignity and self-respect is at issue. And I feel that in a really personal way and in a very emotional way. And I think sometimes that can undermine what you need to do.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I am passionately committed to this country and what it stands for. I'm a product of the changes that have already occurred, and I want to be an instrument for making those changes alive and real in the lives of Americans, particularly children.

That's what I've done for 35 years. It is really my life's work. It is something that comes out of my own experience, both in my family and in my church that, you know, I've been blessed. And I think to whom much is given, much is expected.

So I have tried to create opportunities, both on an individual basis -- intervening to help people who have nowhere else to turn, to be their champion -- and then to make those changes. And I think I can deliver change. I think I understand how to make it possible for more people to live up to their God-given potential.

I get impatient. I get, you know, really frustrated when people don't seem to understand that we can do so much more to help each other. And sometimes I come across that way. I admit that. I get very concerned about, you know, pushing further and faster than perhaps people are ready to go.

But I think that, you know, there is a difference here. You know, I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. And 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, you know, 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.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton invoked your name. I'll give you a chance to respond.

OBAMA: Well, I -- 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, had [laughter] -- you know, I'm sure he never lost a paper. I'm sure he knows where it is.

[laughter]

OBAMA: What -- what -- what he -- what he could not do -- 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. What he could not do is to manage the effort to make sure that the American people understood that if we're going to go into war, that there are going to be consequences and there are going to be costs.

And we have to be able to communicate what those costs are and to make absolutely certain that if we're going to make a decision to send our young men and women into harm's way, that it's based on the best intelligence and that we've asked tough questions before we went in to fight.

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. That's how you get the American people involved.

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.' "

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The Stranger (January 16, 2008 9:39 pm ET)
         
      Whats the issue here? Fineman was pretty much on point about what Hussein Obama said
      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 16, 2008 9:44 pm ET)
           
        And exactly where did Obama mention "paper bag" ?  I've apparently missed it, please provide the quote.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (January 16, 2008 10:26 pm ET)
             
          Who are you replying to?  It can't be The Stranger; he isn't here to debate, discuss or clarify.  He's the roaming elephant of this jungle; he comes around, drops some dung, and then moves on.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (January 17, 2008 9:33 pm ET)
               
            He tried the debating thing and got slapped around. Not being near bright enough to hold his own or make a cogent argument this is all he has.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by LarryE (January 16, 2008 10:30 pm ET)
             
          For future reference: No one who refers to Obama as "Hussein Obama," thus demonstrating both their own paranoid delusions and their desire to rouse similar unfounded fears in others, is worthy of rational response.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The Stranger (January 17, 2008 9:20 pm ET)
               

            For future reference: No one who refers to Obama as "Hussein Obama,"

             I do

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (January 17, 2008 9:32 pm ET)
                 
              Of course you do. You are a moron and a bigot. We expect nothing else from you. You are stupid and have nothing REAL to bring to the table.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 16, 2008 11:20 pm ET)
           
        Well, I see the patron saint of racial ranting has weighed in.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (January 17, 2008 5:11 am ET)
           
        God you are an ignorant troll. Go back to your bridge
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (January 17, 2008 8:04 am ET)
           

        STRANGER:

        Thank you. You help CLARIFY the "issue here", by being obtuse and clueless, acting as if nothing unusual is going on while the rightwing Media blatantly LIES about what people have said, characterizing and "interpreting" everything in sight with a rightwing spin consistently critical of Democrats.

        The cluelessness which you personify is actually part of the story, because Americans need to know that there are still people like yourself who are obviously fooled and bamboozled by the rightwing propaganda, willing to display that ignorance as if it were a virtue. Thanks again. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 17, 2008 8:26 am ET)
           

        Sir, you are full of $#!+. 

        I'm amazed at how often Obama's comments are blatantly distorted.  Personally, everything the man says makes perfect sense to me.  Eveytime he speaks I am left thinking "He's the ONLY one out there who GETS IT."  And yet the press, the right, and even his opposition on the left will cherry-pick and take one sentence out of a page of context and say "He can't manage his way out of a peper bag." 

        Bull$#!+. 

        Why don't you try READING his comments next time moron!  Everything Obama actually said was TRUE, and what MMFA is reporting on is exactly what they said it was: a gross distortion.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (January 17, 2008 10:37 am ET)
             
          In all the commentary I heard yesterday about this, the most interesting I found was that JFK had a similar problem.  He was something of a high-action ADHD type, or something like that.  They get a lot done, but they can't keep anything in order.  He had to have 3 white house aides clean up his desk every single night, because it would be so cluttered with papers. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by The Stranger (January 17, 2008 9:26 pm ET)
               

             JFK had a similar problem.  He was something of a high-action ADHD type, or something like that. 

            Isn't the story that all the pills he popped were for his *wink* back pain *wink*?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (January 17, 2008 11:15 pm ET)
                 
              Someday you must sit still and *wink*wink*  tell us about all YOUR accomplishments.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by The Stranger (January 17, 2008 11:10 am ET)
             

          Ahem:

          Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama freely admits he doesn’t have the experience to run a bureaucracy

          Yeah...i'd say that Hussein Obama pretty much admits that "he can't manage his way out of a paper bag".

          it's just silly for MMfA to whine about Husein not actually having said "paper bag". It's a metaphor sillies.

          As an aside, here's another example of disgusting racism by the left:

           http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/17/joke-leaves-em-gasping/

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (January 17, 2008 11:35 am ET)
               
            Again, using "Hussein" as some kind of crutch to undermine his credibility is incredibly shallow and short-sighted.  If course, I've come to expect that from you. 

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by tex (January 17, 2008 11:36 am ET)
               

            STRANGER:

            Are you aware that your "EXAMPLE" shows anything BUT "disgusting racism from the left"?

            First, the "JOKE" was, "Here's a letter from the White House ... you know, they're going to have to change the name of that place if Obama wins."

            I get it, a WHITE house would have to be called a BLACK house. Is this RACISM, or just stupid?

            The room gasped, and the "joke" was deemed inappropriate along with being unfunny. The speaker himself apologized immediately, saying he "mistook the remark as being humorous." (Wouldn't it be great if the RIGHTWING racists like Limbaugh would admit they mistake themselves as being funny?)

            In short, the left immediately reacted negatively to a stupid, unfunny reference to the color of the White House, a remark that IN NO WAY intended to insult or demean anyone of any race.

            If that's all you have as an example of "disgusting racism from the left", you've got NOTHIN'! It's worse than pitiful when your own example destroys your own premise.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (January 17, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
               
            Here is another example of abject stupidity by Strangefruit a liar and a fool
            Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (January 16, 2008 11:09 pm ET)
         

      MMFA is right about all of this misrepresentation, but it just goes to show that Obama was dumb to make these statements about his lack of concern about bureaucratic details. What did he think was going to happen or how he was going to be construed, especially given attention about the 'experience' issue?

      And I think he's wrong, too-- Bill Clinton not only could tell you where the paper clips were in his office, he probably knew how many were still in the box.

      That's what we need again.  

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (January 17, 2008 7:01 am ET)
           
        i have to agree.  obama did not say what fineman said he did.  on the other hand, when you say you are not a nuts and bolts type of guy, you open yourself up to a lot of criticism.  the job is a combination of things, leadership no doubt being one, but you have to make the system work.  i suspect this is one of those statements a candidate would like to have not said.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (January 16, 2008 11:48 pm ET)
         

      One of the major complaints the rightwing had about President Jimmy Carter was that he "micromanaged" things too much. Too much attention to the details, not enough of that "vision" thing.

      So, it really doesn't matter to our Rightwingers, in Media or actually admitting to being in the employ of "conservative" masters ... it doesn't matter a WHIT which way their Democratic targets lean, it'll be a BAD thing. The hair is either unruly, indicating lack of character for not caring about appearance, or the hair is too perfect, indicating an egocentric obsession with appearance.

      Our frustration seems to come from a disbelief of the UNFAIRNESS of all coverage, when we should instead just EXPECT everything we see and hear from Media to be propaganda from the right.

      If you START by expecting misinformation from the press, you will never be disappointed.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 17, 2008 12:09 am ET)
         

           I see this as a masterstroke on Obama’s part.  He is ceding functionary type competence to his opponents, which is a factor in experience. He thereby seeks to weaken the experience argument against him as far as him being the least experienced candidate. 
      At the same time, he promotes his judgment and leadership as better than the other candidates.

           There are two principles at work here.  First, by implicitly diminishing the importance of the detail aspects of the job, he raises the value of the other aspects.  He is framing the evaluation criteria for the audience.  He is saying “I’m not even competing there” much like candidates will skip a state they know they won’t do well in.

       

           Second, by undermining one aspect of his personality he is appealing to the belief that we all have dominant characteristics, which are so at the expense of other characteristics, especially as pertaining to mental function and personality.  I’ve noticed this in people who believe themselves to be intelligent and also seem to value that trait highly, who go out of their way to show to show how clumsy they are, for example.  Contrarily, others downplay their level of standard intelligence to avoid seeming geeky or otherwise socially incompetent.  The idea is that we are limited in our positive attributes, especially mentally, and exceptionality in one regard displaces the capacity of another of one’s traits. 

           He gives believability to his own self-assessment of being a wise man (my word) by he himself diminishing another aspect of his personality. 

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 17, 2008 12:52 am ET)
           

        It's clear he's attempting to deflect the lack of experience shot and appear more down-to-earth by being slightly self-deprecating.  But it's only a "masterstroke" in the eyes of his adoring fans.  The rest of us see right through the act and aren't impressed.   It's as subtle as "Yes we can !"  >:-)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 17, 2008 2:18 am ET)
             

          Atheist, I'm still an Edwards supporter because I see him as easily having the best chance in the general and I support his stronger statements regarding Iraq withdrawal and his economic populism.  I support Clinton next as I see her as having the second best chance at winning the general election.  I don't dislike Obama as a person and I don't fault him for his ambition.  I just don’t see him winning the Presidency if nominated.  But I give him credit for the shrewd gambit here and a generally brilliant approach given his minority status and lack of experience.  Such smarts bode well for him and the country should he be elected President.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 17, 2008 4:54 am ET)
               

            Further, I won’t take a back seat to anyone in my dubiousness of the Obama candidacy.  As I’ve stated in the past, I see a minority nominated at this time as harmful to the long term prosperity of the Democratic Party.  It would cement in the public mind that the Democratic Party is the party of the outsider, the interloper, the non-real American--- especially at a time when we could likely pick up disaffected Republicans if we were to give them a WASP to make voting for someone from such a demonized party less gut wrenching for them.  Worse than that though, I believe the candidacy of an inexperienced minority will damage the credibility of the party in a more sinister way.  It will appear to be subject to influences, outside of the regular Democratic Party establishment, which wish to engage in social engineering or even sabotage of the party’s chances of winning.

            That said, I’ll repeat that I don’t dislike the senator as a person, nor do I fault him for his ambition.  It’s the people and forces behind him that I’m distrustful of.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (January 17, 2008 5:13 am ET)
                 
              Really? So then you are saying that minorities are interlopers and arent REALLY Americans? Thats just sad.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 17, 2008 9:38 am ET)
                   

                I see it as just a political fact that a large percentage of people do feel this way.  As any election is a numbers game, it matters what they think whether you agree or not.  Personally, I do feel different.   I’ve explained my beliefs in this regard many times in the past.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by atheist (January 17, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
                     

                  Well, you can ignore the polls if you wish, but most if not all are showing that both Obama and Clinton can beat any Republican candidate.  So I don't see how Obama's run can be bad.

                  I don't dislike Obama either, and I don't fault him for his drive.  I just don't buy the pristine pious image he attempts to project.  Even his self-deprecating comment was loaded with egotism.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (January 17, 2008 9:41 pm ET)
                     
                  I get that. I also see the point you are trying to make. I think Dems need to make their decisions based on what they think best and NOT cater to residual racism
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 17, 2008 11:22 pm ET)
                 

              Further, I won’t take a back seat to anyone in my dubiousness of the Obama candidacy. 

              You don't have to take a back seat you can have a front seat on the short bus.

              As I’ve stated in the past, I see a minority nominated at this time as harmful to the long term prosperity of the Democratic Party.  It would cement in the public mind that the Democratic Party is the party of the outsider, the interloper, the non-real American

              Obama would make the public think the Democratic party is "non-real American"? Using that non-logic, nominating Hillary would make the public think the Democratic party is a bunch of sissies.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 18, 2008 1:10 am ET)
                   

                You don't have to take a back seat you can have a front seat on the short bus.”

                I know you’re African American and as such I can appreciated you’re sensitivity on this subject.  My main interest is avoiding another GOP win now and in the near future.   I see this as a very dangerous time economically to have another Republican elected President.

                Obama would make the public think the Democratic party is "non-real American"? Using that non-logic, nominating Hillary would make the public think the Democratic party is a bunch of sissies.”

                Only to a small degree as the Dems do have a slight advantage among women, but offsetting that, ethnic/racial/religious groups have both genders almost equally, while by definition a White demographic does not include Asians, for example
                Report Abuse
                • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 18, 2008 1:18 am ET)
                     
                  Only to a small degree as the Dems do have a small advantage among women, but offsetting that, ethnic/racial/religious groups are comprised of both genders almost equally, while by definition a White demographic doesn't include Asians, for example.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (January 17, 2008 8:38 am ET)
           

        Rachael Maddow, on her radio show and also on Olbermann's program, forwards the notion that the Democratic candidates are VERY different in their approaches to a common theme; CHANGE.

        Obama says he will "bring people together", enlisting the active help of the American People, and that this cooperation will bring about the change he proposes.

        Edwards says the system is broken, and the change he would seek would BEGIN by "taking on" the entrenched special interests and their lobbiests, either stripping their influence or ignoring them, and then seeking to implement change with a new Washington dynamic which empowers THE PEOPLE, and takes power away from the current power structure of money and corporate dominance.

        Hillary thinks change is more a matter of managing the nuts and bolts of the existing system, using proven techiniques of compromise and listening to all sides. She would promote "change from within", with a clear understanding that ours is an adversarial system at best, and that succeeding involves overcoming obstacles inherent TO the system.

        Very different approaches. Obama, optimistic that adversaries will fall in line once they understand the nation is behind Obama's vision. Edwards, cynical about entrenched power, and believing he can get change if he just defangs those with undue influence. Hillary, the realist, taking a more conventional approach of working for change from within, and doing the hard work of reversing priorities.

        Which approach would be the most successful? Do we have evidence of Republicans abandoning their stances for a charismatic leader of the opposing party? Is it likely that ignoring or minimizing K-Street lobbiests will be successful in allowing broad and sweeping change in the capitol? Is there any history of a President being able to "get things done" despite opposition, by working the system diligently?

        These are the questions we VOTERS have to ask ourselves ... not who has the BETTER vision, nor who has the more appealing personality, but who is most likely to MAKE the changes we desire?

        A four-year term is a very short time indeed for the kinds of change that are being proposed. It's not overstating to say that the first couple of weeks will determine if change will actually HAPPEN, or if instead there will be gridlock and continuing inaction by a divided government. There is no time for "experiments", for expecting cooperation where none has ever been seen before, for "hoping" to minimize influence from the current 800-pound gorillas of influence.

        The best bet for change, I would contend, would be from someone who has no illusions about the realities of the system, someone who has faced down ... and been faced down BY ... the system as it exists. CHANGE will come from someone who is not trying to reinvent the wheel. The government is like a wagon pulled by a 20 mule team. It MIGHT work to get out in front of the team, and attempt to lead it by force of persuasion. It MIGHT work to simply unhook the present team, and attempt to tie the wagon to a new team, although it would be time consuming and a gamble as to whether the new team is willing to pull in the direction you want.

        MOST LIKELY to work would be knowing what it takes to steer that wheel in the desired direction, by nothing but the hard, hard work of pulling on the reins and understanding the team and what it takes to redirect them.

        If you've got a load that needs to be delivered by a 20-mule team, you don't need a dreamer or a contrarian. You need a muleskinner. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by anyfreedomleft (January 17, 2008 9:42 am ET)
         
      Funny ... Repukes lie to claim that Obama can't manage his way out of a paper bag ... all the while making a saint out of a guy who managed to "manage" his way out of a paper bag in business ... and ran said businesses into bankruptcy ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by almondmj2338 (January 18, 2008 10:47 am ET)
         
      Impatient is better than forgetfulness.
      If Obama wants to lead, he will need to invest in some Sticky Post It Notes.  The more people he is going to involve, the more chance the message will be lost in transition. Mr. Post-it does not appear to be the multitasker we need.  
      Report Abuse
    • Author by almondmj2338 (January 18, 2008 10:37 pm ET)
         
      Obama is spinning out of control.Everybody is beginning to see “The Great False Hope”.  He cannot win a race on likeability!  He never had a sense of urgency.  He never completed much as a senator. He is totally lost without a speech written for him.  He is lost without a teleprompter.  He sounds like Bush without notes.  Without a speech, he no longer sounds like the inspirational MLK.  He’s playing Americas and its youth. 
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.