With all the focus on the VP pick, I feel like we have lost sight of the important issue. Who will make the best president?
Some have said, that 20 months as governor of Alaska is not enough to prove that you are qualified to be president. I agree with that. Others have said that four years as senator is not enough to prove you are qualified to be president. I agree with that as well.
But I would add that 30 years as senator is also not enough to prove that you are qualified to be president. Each of us can all name some long time senators who would make horrible presidents. We can also name presidents who came to the job with very little experience in government and did well, and others who came in with lots of experience in government and did horribly. Time in government is not, by itself, a qualification for the job.
So what does a candidate need to do to prove he is ready to be president?
The primary job of the president, the thing he has to be able to do if he can do nothing else, is to build a good organization. Ronald Reagan was not a hands on manager, but he hired people who were. Most think he did a pretty good job as president. (I am aware that praising Reagan is not a popular thing here, but ignore whether you agree with his decisions and focus instead on his effectiveness in getting them enacted). Clinton was a micromanager who wanted to have his fingers in everything, but he also hired people who could do the job with or without his help or interference. Most people think he did a pretty good job. Never mind whether or not you agree with the philosophy or like the individual mentioned, both these men left office with high approval ratings. Their administrative skills were key to the positive perceptions of their presidency.
So which candidate has shown that he is able to assemble an organization that can function effectively?
The only time either of the two candidates has had to run an organization is while running for president. (I'm sorry, but being one of 100 senators does not get you "managing the whole shebang" credentials no matter how long you've been there. See above.) Whose campaign functions most effectively is the only way we have of gauging which man makes thoughtful, wise hiring choices and which does not.
McCain's campaign has not been a model of stability. He changed his campaign manager in July 2007 and in July 2008. Many believe that the second replacement was forced on him by Republican leaders who were concerned about his campaign's lack of direction.
Among McCain’s obstacles has been a growing perception that the Arizona Republican failed to capitalize on his head start in the general election, and his campaign has seemed halting and disorganized in its daily messaging.
Indeed, McCain's campaign has only achieved focus since that last shake up, which resulted in bringing in long-time Bush/Cheney counselor Steve Schmidt as campaign director, which lends some credence to this perspective.
This focus has come at the price of controlling McCain's encounters with the press. And after interviews like this one from Time, you can see why. Apparently, McCain's campaign staff regards him as an enemy of his own campaign. If the Time interview is typical, one needn't wonder why.
(I have to admit that this sort of thing also leads me to question his temperament. If he can't handle a soft ball question like "Please define honor" how is he going to face the challenges of being president?)
Finally it reached the point that his advisers won't even let him talk to the hard hitting journalist Larry King. When will McCain be allowed to speak for himself? If he wins, will he still have Bush/Cheney operatives running his presidency? Or will he throw them off and choose haphazardly as he did with his VP choice? Love her or hate her, there's no way that the choice of Palin was a thoughtful, careful decision. I have watched McCain closely, and I do not feel confident that his cabinet choices will be thoughtful. The fact that he was a POW does not tell me he can handle the job.
Obama, by contrast, has run one of the smoothest campaigns I've ever seen, and I started watching presidential elections 28 years ago. As the UK Telegraph says
In contrast, Mr Obama's campaign has been a model of stability and discipline.
There have been no shake-ups or leaks about rivalries even as the Illinois senator brings on board senior staff who had worked against him for Senator Hillary Clinton, his main opponent in the primaries.
He has assembled a top-notch staff, and they and he have remained disciplined and focused throughout. When they have made mistakes, they have not panicked. When they faced something unexpected, they did not lose focus.
I was not an Obama believer at the start of this campaign season. I was disappointed when he got the nomination. I wasn't sure he was ready, nor was I sure what kind of president he would be. Watching him manage (yes, this takes executive skills) his campaign has convinced me that he will take a serious and thoughtful approach to governing and building his staff.
Is how a man manages his campaign the best way to choose a president? No. Certainly not in ideal world. In the best of worlds, both candidates would have long resumes with extensive budgeting and management experience to prove they knew how to handle the duties they would face. But that's not the case with either candidates.
In this campaign, with these two candidates, all I have to go on is how their campaign is run. And Obama wins that contest, hands down.