TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
16.01.2008
Obama's Messy Desk

I agree with Mike that Obama's candor about his greatest weakness--"I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it"--verged on being too cavalier. That was particularly true in light of Hillary's response to this concession, which I thought was her best of the night and, frankly, one of the better rationales I've heard for her candidacy. Here's what she said:

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. ...

So I do think you have to do both. It's a -- 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.

Obama probably saved himself with a deft (and funny) follow-up about how Bush "was very efficient. He was on time all the time and, you know ... I'm sure he never lost a paper":

[W]hat 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 -- 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.

But Obama should have been more careful out of the gate. He should have stressed that his weakness is personal disorganization (messy desks and the like) not managing an organization. (They're somewhat related, but hardly the same.) I think this is what he was going for, but, even so, he was a little too dismissive about the importance of operational skill. And that dismissiveness dated back to an interview he gave to the The Reno Gazette-Journal, which Russert cited last night.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:08 AM with 26 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

kgrant1054 said:

Two thoughts on this:

1.  Obama's admission to a certain lack of organization does not lose points in most people's minds, because they are the same way.  The anal-retentives of the world may have cringed and sought to extrapolate this into a larger 'problem', but the rest of us nodded and thought to ourselves, 'yep, just like my desk', and noted that as long as you have a few anal-retentives around to make sure you are going to the right meeting at the right time all is right with the world.  I certainly do not think that this speaks to whatever fears of a lack of micro-managing skills that Hillary mentioned.  

I guess if you really liked the laundry list, exhaustive minutiae-minding of Bill Clinton, you will get more of the same from Hillary, but frankly, it is wearying, and doesn't seem to speak to a larger understanding of the role of the President.  Nor does it translate down ticket.  Bill got himself elected twice, but his coattails were mightly thin.  I think this can be explained, partially, by the fact that Clinton micro-managed well, but had no overarching vision for the country.   Certainly nothing that you could run on.  

2.  Clinton never really quite got around to admitting any weaknesses, did she?  She danced around the question like George W. Bush, and frankly I have had enough of 'leadership' that can never quite figure out how to address mistakes.  If you can't admit a mistake, you won't bother trying to clean up the mess that you have made.  It is exactly this kind of hubris that so disgusts a great many about Bush.  Do we really want 4-8 more years of that?

I will take my chances on Obama's messy desk, thank you very much.

January 16, 2008 9:24 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Hillary's response to Obama's weakness was good - I agree - it was the best of the night.

However - Hillary's own "weakness" was so pathetic and pandering that you just wanted to throw a brick through the tv. She basically said "Well...sometimes I'm ready for change and to change things for the better before the American people are ready. So I get ahead of myself some times."

Oh my god...gag me with s spoon. The gist of her "weakness" was that she knows what's best for the American people WAYYYY before they figure it out. Poor little american people! If only they'd let Hillary make it all better. She found her voice recently!

Oh and if you want to vomit, watch this ad:

www.youtube.com/watch

This ad makes me want to thrash around my office breaking things for about 45 minutes...

January 16, 2008 9:37 AM

jet said:

Following on kgate's comments, Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece about the Clinton family drama when it comes to fessing up to mistakes (he's citing their history), and asks why Democrats want to put themselves and the country through that again.  That's a good question.

Agreed with Noam that Obama should do better out of the gate when discussing operational skill, but related to kgate's complaint about handling problematic issues every president faces, given Obama's response, he seems to do a better job than kgate implies about Hillary, as his recovery above demonstrates.  And even if Obama does do better out of the gate, potential future subordinates may not.  Wouldn't we rather see Obama clean up after a gaff, as we do in Noam's example, than hear the candidates simply 'gas' about it?

January 16, 2008 10:01 AM

stgla said:

Classic response to "what's your weakness" is to talk about something else entirely and never answer the question. (Then when they followup and press for answer you could say that your weakness is impatience with forced self-deprecation.)

January 16, 2008 10:06 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I agree with kgrant and VC.

To me, Obama's response was terrific and reminds people of why they trust the guy - he's a real human being who answers questions directly.  He trusts his listeners to get it and himself enough to show some hindquarter.  

Trust in the core difference between Hillary and Obama, not messy desks or ten point plans. Either you trust someone or you don't and that happens in your gut, not your head.

Had Obama answered with some candidate-itis robotron blather (like Senator Clinton is constitutionally incapable of NOT doing) I would have been very surprised. It would be out of character and a turn-off.  

And VC - I agree, there's something about Hillary's responses that make me want to commit violence.

January 16, 2008 10:19 AM

austinexpat said:

Sure, I'm a Clinton supporter, but to me it looked like a clear flub by Obama, and never mind how "regular guy" some of you want to paint it as.  This election is about Americans selecting someone who can fix a country that eight years under Bush has sent way off the rails.  Obama started off saying "I'm not as good at the little stuff as I'd like to be" which gave Hillary a perfect opening for 1) comparing him to Bush, who also had trouble with the little stuff and 2) pointing out that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing she is good at.

Many Americans might be looking for "uplift" this election, but the ones in the center who are going to decide the issue want competence first, period.  "I lose papers and need to be handled by my staff" is not how you impress us with your competence.  Trying to walk it back by saying Bush is efficient because he arrives to meetings on time isn't going to defuse the issue.  He walked right into Hillary's narrative about his candidacy.  This is going to come up again.

January 16, 2008 10:34 AM

blackton said:

she said "you know" three times so talking like a teenager is also a pretty strong weakness. And she used the dummy auxiliary do in the affirmative, whereas it should be used in the affirmative just for emphasis. And why the use of the word frankly especially as a modifier of failed? Did he frankly fail? Frankly, frankly is misplaced and redundant. Reading Hillary here shows her command of basic English is simply not as good as Obama's.

January 16, 2008 10:36 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

She says "certainly" constantly too.  In all fairness, Obama's gift of gab is rather a once in a lifetime thing, with that voice and everything. It's tough to compete with that.  The only one who comes close, although in a voice all her own, is Michelle Obama.  Two hours of inspiration with no notes and not an adverb or an um in sight.  

I think this one is in the eye of the beholder austin. I see your logic, but she'd better watch out for that Al Gore-ish Ms. Perfect shtick, even after 8 years of Bush it could backfire.  She just sounds so lecturing and calculating, it's unbelievable - and I say this as someone who used to be a fan.  

This campaign has REALLY turned me off of her, sadly.  I'd like to see her stay in the Senate but she's toxic as our nominee.

January 16, 2008 11:04 AM

teplukhin2you said:

I'm not a Hillary basher but the notion of Hillary as CEO is beyond ridiculous. Along with her disgraceful BS about the war, these ridiculous fibs 'n' fairytales are pushing me closer and closer to the Obama camp. Even though I find his calls for withdrawal to be naive and dumb, I can at least respect the guy.

January 16, 2008 12:06 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Re. blackton's point on Hillary's English, could someone please parse this: "I do think that being president is the chief executive officer...."

Was the transcription garbled, or did an adult running for president actually say that?

January 16, 2008 12:08 PM

J.J. Gould said:

blackton, Wandreycer1 -- So I'm not the only one to notice how strikingly inarticulate Hillary can be? E.g., whatever she was going on about during her "emotional moment" in NH, it was one of the most incoherent things I've ever heard anyone say (possibly second to Tom Cruise's awesome Scientology video). Made no sense. Likewise last night, two or three times at least, she seemed to wander from one vaguely formulated thing to another, with little or no connecting thoughts. That anyone could find this sort of performance "commanding" has me at a loss, maybe to my own discredit ...

January 16, 2008 12:11 PM

J.J. Gould said:

tep -- !

January 16, 2008 12:12 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I can respect any position on the war so long as it's supported by logic and sustained honestly and intelligently, without demonizing people who hold opposing views. That Hillary and Bill are now saying they did not support overthrowing Saddam-- for the very same reason that Bill articulated to the nation prior to bombing the sh*t out of Baghdad in 1998 ie "Saddam is determined to get WMD and if he gets them, I guarantee you he will use them"-- is truly disgraceful. They and I supported the war. They and I believed, as did Teddy Kennedy, Jacques Chirac, Blair, Tenet, German intelligence and nearly everyone, that Saddam's WMD program was in full swing and needed taking out. Hillary needs to stand up and say that we supported the assessment but found out later that it was wrong.

I'm an adult, I understand political trimming and hedging, but this issue is too important to allow anyone to get away with such gross revisionism.

January 16, 2008 12:28 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

I don't think they really are getting away with it Tep - they are busted all the time for it.

January 16, 2008 12:52 PM

The Plank said:

I can't believe no one has mentioned what surely was the most hilarious moment from last night's

January 16, 2008 1:26 PM

ralphnelle said:

I'm surprised Crowley and vcentrist think Hillary's messy desk attack was a good moment for her. I seriously doubt the audience would agree.

Most of us have fielded this question in interviews. And I'm guessing most of us find it pretty annoying and cliche, but also understand that it is a personality test as much as anything: will you be honest or give the BS "sometimes I work too hard" answer?

It is beyond shameless to use an interviewee's candid professed weakness as an opportunity for attack. I thought the exchange made Hillary look soulless and opportunistic. It wasn't a good moment for the "cares about people like me" voter.

January 16, 2008 2:20 PM

huntlib said:

Anyone who thinks Obama's "admission" going to turn off voters is living in la-la land.

So he needs a staff to help with minutiae. Powerful admission. As far as most people are concerned, he might be admitting that he sometimes runs out of sharpened pencils.

Hillary's response was self-caricature. In essence, she said, "if you can't keep track of small things, how do you expect to lead the world? ...I myself keep three sharpened pencils in my left coat pocket."

Brilliant, Hillary. The American people always love a smarty-pants.

January 16, 2008 2:35 PM

bcbaird said:

Let last night's debate be a lesson for future politicians.  When asked a question like "What is your greatest weakness?", you should reply with: "I love too much" or "I am a neat freak."  Hell, even "My frail human body, which I hope to augment with a robotic exoskeleton" works.

January 16, 2008 3:03 PM

bcbaird said:

Huntlib:

I agree completely.  When was the last time a sitting President had to do their own filing?  I think it was Truman, who was embarrassingly late for a speech he was to deliver at the UN because he "...had to get all these reports collated before five o'clock.  The buck stops here, ya know."

January 16, 2008 3:06 PM

virginiacentrist said:

bcbaird:

haha - that's good. For older candidates - they really could say "I've got this bad leg. I'm hoping the presidential doctors can get me a sweet robotic one."

January 16, 2008 3:26 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Too bad Gephardt isn't in the race. He could have said:

"Well, I'd have to say my biggest weakness is the fact that I don't have eyebrows."

January 16, 2008 3:28 PM

teplukhin2you said:

nice one, bcbaird. classic thread. Is it Friday yet?

January 16, 2008 3:52 PM

teplukhin2you said:

nice one, bcbaird. classic thread. Is it Friday yet?

January 16, 2008 4:27 PM

scobb20 said:

No one wants a paper pusher as president, or to turn the presidency into a bureaucratic position resembling middle management.

At least Obama didn't go with the pre-programmed response, where his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness, like Edward's "I care to much," or Clinton's "sometimes people think I'm moving too fast making the world a better place."  Obama's weakness is at least a weakness, not some strength that overreaches.

January 17, 2008 2:37 AM

The Stump said:

I'm not out in Nevada, but I see that Obama's taken to using the greatest weakness question from

January 18, 2008 1:31 PM

The Stump said:

I just noted that Obama may have been hurt by Edwards's inability to draw more votes from Hillary

January 19, 2008 5:26 PM