Comments on Leadership

After what we've just been through (Bush 43) we desperately need a leader who can reset the big-picture vision for our country's direction and inspire Americans of all stripes and political persuasions to believe we're a democracy again. That leader must have an appreciation for nuance, as well as for viewpoints on policy issues that differ from his own. A high-caliber White House Chief of Staff with gravitas (think Tom Daschle) coupled with a strong cabinet can make the trains run on time. We don't need a manager, we need a President. A President Obama, that is.

This reminds me of the whole Bush "common man" approach in the 2000 campaign, basically portraying Al Gore as a know-it-all intellectual and all-around geeky brainiac while Bush is simply an average Joe. I never understood why that would be a good argument...I WANT the president to be smarter than me and most everyone else, and likewise I want them to be hands-on in terms of running the show, all the details of the show, not just the "big picture".

Obama should be careful about seeming to be a similar figurehead to George Bush who appears to leave the actual running of the bureaucracy to others. Just the idea, however unlikely, that Obama could be puppeteered a la the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rove-type triumvirate is frightening. I realize he's just talking about delegating details, but still...he should emphasize that he can hold the reins of government firmly in-hand.

Please, spare me another big picture incompetent president a la Bush or Reagan. Give me someone who knows how things work, knows where they want the country to go, and can state the destination in thought out complete sentences. We should be electing both know how and leadership.

Like it or not, Bush's vision leadership was very effective. You may not like that vision, but he managed to do what he wanted to do.

The question then is whether you agree with Obama's vision. If he is elected, it's very likely he'll be able to persuade people to follow him.

Democrats rely too much on intellectual wonkiness. That doesn't move people to action.

I daresay, however, that Obama has the intellectual fortitude to make good decisions as well as the ability to lead and persuade.

I remember the candidates' answers to this question, "What's your greatest strength; what's your greatest weakness?"

Clinton and Edwards's answers were just the typical phony, run-of-the-mill drivel you expect to hear out of politicians' mouths. Both their answers went something along the lines of, "My greatest sin is I just care too much about the American people."

Obama actually gave a refreshingly real and frank answer. Then, when Hillary tried to attack this actual admission of weakness with the George W. Bush comparison, he did a great job of parrying it.

Sure, the ability to come across as authentic and frank and not just another politician is not reason alone to elect a candidate. And yet, with Obama, it speaks to the greater potential of his leadership.

How? There's a great column a month ago by The New York Times's David Brooks that gives a better answer than I could and really gets into the same questions of character and leadership this debate question provoked. Excerpts:

Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones.

… Obama also has powers of observation that may mitigate his own inexperience and the isolating pressures of the White House.

… Obama demonstrated those powers in “Dreams From My Father” and still reveals glimpses of the ability to step outside his own ego and look at reality in uninhibited and honest ways.

it might be the same as bush -- as it should be. no one can be the smartest at everything, so you do need the support of experts. and we do hate a know-it-all. but given that obama is smarter than bush, that means two things:

1) he'll have to surround himself with smarter people than bush surrounded himself with -- good.

2) he'll be able to make better judgment calls after the experts weigh in.

Bush isn't such a terrible leader because of his inattention to detail. The president typically isn't concerned with dotting every I. He's a terrible leader because he values loyalty and ideological purity over basic competence, and fills his team with people who are also inattentive or indifferent to detail. (And who also scoff at basic competence.)

The fact that Obama admitted to an actual weakness rather than some bullshit job interview weakness-that-is-actually-a-strength answer should tell you something about him.

Whom the president appoints is the real issue, not whether they are into the big picture or the details.

We can guess that Ron Sims will get a job from Clinton in return for his support. Is that payback for a crony, as Bush would do? Or picking the best person for the job?

Who will Obama appoint?

@8-McClurkin and Oprah, obviously!

Eli-

My mother, a die-hard Edwards fan until he attacked Clinton's "emotional moment" as un-Presidential, said your very argument to me a month ago: Obama's elevation of idealism and philosophy over specific policy totally reminded her of Bush's central argument in 2000.

I haven't mentioned it until now because I really like Obama (more so after last night) and hate comparing him to that dingleberry Bush. But your post made me go "aha! Mom's not the only one!"

I think if people look at this from a work perspective, what they like in a boss, I don't think this helps Hillary at all. Everyone hates a micro manager for a boss.

(By "people" and "everyone" he means Canadians, methinks. ;))

I think Cheney is the micromanager in the current administration and look what he did with the war. The big picture approach is better in my view.

@4 Bush managed to do what he wanted not because of his magnificent vision but because after 9/11 congress and the american people abdicated their rights and critical thinking skills for a 'get the terrorists at any cost' mob mind set.

Yes, Obama has a vision and is more dynamic that clinton/edwards. However, Clinton has a very real vision too, and she has a much, much better understanding of how to translate her vision into an achievable reality than obama. That's why she should be president.

Indeed, @14; she did such a fantastic job of translating her vision in 1993. No wonder we have universal health care now.

I want a detail person. The damn White House tennis court schedule has been a mess ever since Carter left.

@15, yes, and 1993 is 15 years ago and Hillary has learned a lot of how things actually happen in the beltway through e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e during that time. Obama today, with all his lofty ideas, is where she was then. Period.