A thought on the debate

I did get to watch a few moments before switching to Comedy Central. Of what I saw, there was one moment that stood out. Obama has spoken of his ability to bring people together and bring change to Washington. Clinton agrees that we need change, but she says we need it from someone who has experience; someone who knows how to manage. The clear implication is that Obama is not such a person (she may be the person only by default, but that's another conversation).

In NH on January 5, in a moment that many pundits cited as her pivot point, Clinton laughed off Obama's "you're likable enough" line (a line he said he "absolutely regret[ted]" last night), and said this:

You know, I think this is one of the most serious decisions that the voters of New Hampshire have ever had to make. And I really believe that the most important question is, who is ready to be president on day one?

You know, the problems waiting -- some of which we have talked about already -- are huge, and the stakes could not be higher.

And you know, in 2000 we, unfortunately, ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with; who said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider; who said that he had his intuition and he was going to, you know, really come into the White House and transform the country. And you know, at least I think there are the majority of Americans who think that was not the right choice.

So I am offering 35 years of experience making change and the results to show for it. I, you know, respect and like both Senator Edwards and Senator Obama. But I think if you want to know what change each of us will bring about, look at what we've done. And there are a lot of differences that I think need to be aired for the voters of New Hampshire because I stand on my record of experience, and I appreciate Governor Richardson's long history of serving our country. But I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change -- (applause) -- with consequences across our country and the world. And that on the specific issues that I have worked on for a lifetime and the plans I have put forth, I believe I am more prepared and ready to actually deliver change, and I think that ultimately is what Americans want to know and believe.

Last night, she made a similar comment after Tim Russert asked each candidate to discuss their greatest strength and weakness. This is what she said:

But I think that, you know, there is a difference here. 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.

In both cases, she's drawing a pretty clear line connecting Bush in 2000 to Obama in 2008; "compassionate conservatism" to "hope." Clearly something worked in NH and maybe this type of argument had an effect. Maybe people thought twice about voting for Obama after remembering the mistake of Bush.

But I don't buy it. Clinton has a legitimate argument to make about Obama's lack of experience; she's right to point out that he has nothing on his resume that seems to give him the necessary management skills. But doesn't she undermine her point by comparing him to Bush? Would anyone really agree with this? My guess, and I have no evidence to prove this, is that the comparison infuriates and energizes Obama supporters. And I would imagine that many of the undecideds she is trying to persuade are turned off by this as well.
(Photo: Reuters)