Off we go a-caucusing: Hillary vs. Obama

Tomorrow, I am going to attend my first ever Presidential Caucus. I live in the state of Washington, and given the deadlocked nature of the Democratic presidential race, I feel it's important to go and express a point of view.

I've never been to a caucus before, so I'm not really certain what to expect. I'm also not sure yet who I'll support.

Obviously, one of the important things I'm looking for in a presidential candidate is strength and leadership on independent energy and climate change. Trouble is, Obama and Clinton have very little difference in their positions on these issues. Their published plans to address the issue are extremely similar. How to decide?

If you can't distinguish on the policy, distinguish on who is more likely to execute it. I break it down as follows:

Who "gets it" better?
If you dig deep, neither has really been a leader on the issue. Hillary is probably the more knowledgeable candidate, and can jabber in the political lexicon as well as anyone. Here's an interesting interview of her in action talking with Al Gore in Congress about the carbon cap & trade system:

Obama's rhetoric seems more grand. I don't know if he personally understands the issue as well, but he certainly sees solving it as a priority, and is committed to bringing the smartest minds around to bear on the problem.

From this direct comparison, Hillary seems like a winner, right? Hold up. Where does the environment and energy independence fit in Hillary's agenda? What's the priority?

A question of priorities
Hillary has a broad swath of issues, including environment, listed on her website. In interviews and speeches, sometimes she lists it amongst her top 4-5 goals for the presidency, sometimes it is omitted entirely (depending on the audience). While I don't doubt it's a priority for her, she has a lot on her agenda, and it's unclear exactly where energy/environment fits.

Obama has been consistent in speaking to the environment as a "top 3" goal for him. Asked by Newsweek what he wants to accomplish by the end of his Presidency, he said “end(ing) the war. . .universal health care . . . and we will have a bold energy agenda that drastically reduces our emissions of greenhouse gases while creating a green engine that can drive growth for many years to come.” That is a definitive answer I can get behind.

Management Style: Autocratic vs. Democratic
Probably the ultimate decision between Hillary and Obama comes down to their management style. As somebody who has managed groups over a hundred people in the business world, I can testify that management is about two things: 1. getting things done, and 2. getting the right things done.

I have experienced both autocratic and democratic management styles several times in the workplace. Autocratic managers are keenly smart, and massive control freaks. They don't trust anybody but themselves to make the decisions. Their organization works like the military: they set the agenda, they give the orders, and everybody executes to that plan as best they can.

Certainly with an autocratic management style, things get done. The trouble is, the right things don't always get done. The manager is usually the furthest person away from the implementation details, so sometimes their vision is out-of-whack with reality. Other times, the vision is good, but because it's not shared or understood amongst the team, the vision gets lost in translation during implementation.

Bush was an autocratic leader. Clinton, though much more knowledgeable than Bush, will be as well. She is convinced that she knows best, no matter what the situation.

Democratic leaders are another beast entirely. They are consumed with consensus and making sure that everyone has a say in the project. They try to frame a problem initially, but invest a lot into blue-sky brainstorming and inclusive ideation to work through the complexity of a problem. As a result, their solutions are usually complex, but often very good and thorough.

The danger of a democratic leadership style is paralysis. As human beings, dissent and differing opinions will always exist. If consensus must be reached, and no leader exists to cut through conflicts, the entire process can get stuck. Allowing somebody to develop and express an opinion, and then squashing it and telling them we're going in another direction is a difficult management problem and can lead to ultimate dissension in the ranks.

In a nutshell, if the democratic leader gets the project done, it will certainly be the better solution. But sometimes democratic leaders simply can't get the job done.

Obama is a classic democratic leader. He is beloved by those that work with him. He is a master of consensus and compromise, but he has not proven he can get things done on a grand scale.

It's the difference between a corporate lawyer and a Wal-Mart board member as compared to a community organizer who also honed his political skills as a state senator dealing with the needs of a South Side Chicago district. It's the difference between top-down and bottom-up.

I believe that the right leader for the job fits between these two. They start off as democratic to reap the best of the ideas and then switch to hardcore autocratic once they've found them to ensure implementation happens. Can Obama use his top-notch mind to bridge the gap into a more hardcore manager when required? Can Hillary leverage her huge network of contacts to find the right solutions to the problems we face?

I think I've made up my mind who I'm going to caucus for. I'm not going to tell though. That'd be cheating. :)  I encourage you to think about what's important for you in a candidate and make a decision. And vote!!

Comments

[Max]

"Bush was an autocratic leader. Clinton, though much more knowledgeable than Bush, will be as well. She is convinced that she knows best, no matter what the situation. "

I don't get why Clinton will be an autocratic leader or why she'll be convinced she knows best? She always talks about what she has learned from other people and she continously mentions wanting to get consensus as well as joining people on the issues.

"It's the difference between a corporate lawyer and a Wal-Mart board member "
Thats odd that you reduced the difference to that when as a Wal-Mart Board member Clinton had some success in helping make Walmart more environmental. Wouldn't it be more appropiate to describe it as a different between an advocate for women and children versus a community organizer?

[arduous]

I have to say, I'm not in love with the fact that Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill (and not only that he TOUTED it as a major accomplishment everywhere) considering that the energy bill was laden with money to corporate oil and coal. Clinton voted against it.

I also saw Clinton speak at the headquarters of an electrical union focused on green energy, and I was very impressed by what she said about green jobs.

That said, there are lots of good reasons to vote/caucus for either candidate and they both will be a heck of a lot better than the current administration! The most important thing is to make your voice heard.

[jacksmith]

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

“HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!