he's said this several other times in the recent past, including the Reno Gazette Journal interview. As far as it goes, I think he's right: the management of a campaign like this flows from the top down, and is based on respect, trust, decision-making, and leadership--or the lack thereof.

Reading about tonights debate between Obama and Clinton reminds me of Noonan's comments last week in her WSJ opinion piece in which she said, "Hillary does grace like Bush does nuance."

Obama usually delivers a punch in rhetorical context. He highlights his own strengths, sets up the contrast with his opponent, and then uses his perceived strengths to make his opponent appear wrong or weak by comparison. Hillary seems to prefer the much more strident and less graceful head on approach to criticism, in which she inundates her opponent with a forceful delivery in the hope that they stumble or shut down as a result of being unprepared or surprised by the fercefullness of her rhetorical jabs.

Obama 08! Obama 08!

I think Obama's campaign (and career) are good examples of how he'll get things done as president. He's made rapid, steady progress and he's getting where he wants to go in a very efficient manner. I don't seem him changing tactics after the campaign is over.

Yeah. I don't want him to be a saint. But when he does "contrast," he does keep a sense of decency about it.

Off topic, or maybe not, regardless of who you support, everyone in maryland, virginia and dc, get out there and vote today. This election is too important for our country and is the most important election in 50 plus years. GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, why doesn't TPM put up a header on the first page before every primary encouraging people to exercise their right to vote. This election is too important.

Remember when Hillary made the comment in the Chicago debate along the lines of 'bringing your brooms and vacuums to Washington'?
It now appears that she doesn't even know how to clean up her own campaign troubles and mistakes. Within her campaign, dirty negative politicking is embraced, not even seen as an issue, and the piles of residue are lying around in plain sight. Just visit her supporters sites like Taylor Marsh or Hillaryis44, and you will see a whole focused embrace of negativity..... endless grasping onto and of whatever might be twisted/embellished to pull Obama down. But, in the end, probably, making Mark Penn her chief strategist will be seen as her campaign's most expensive mistake, and not only in terms of the millions the campaign has overpaid him.

In the 60 Minutes interview of Obama Sunday night, Obama was point-blank asked, in the context of dirty politicking against him, if he was going to eventually pull out any of the skeletons in Hillary's closet. Obama said, no, and explained his adherence to clean-cut principles as a demonstration of the 'different kind of politics' he has been advocating all along.

Obama is the 'clean sweep' candidate.

I am struck with how Hillary handles a bad news patch. She never just straight talks but tries to con us into believing that we have the facts wrong. Look at how she is now explaining how the Caucus wins by Senator Obama are not worth much, after she fought like hell to win them starting in Iowa, and up to the last minute in Maine. Or was that a Hillery impersonator that held a town hall meeting in Maine just before their caucuses.

Watching Hillary twisting, shifting, spinning, and changing her positions, such as on Florida and Michigan, it occurred to me that she is actually the Democrats' Mitt Romney.

Obama's right on many levels here. From all indications, his campaign is exceptionally well-run. I've seen it here in Maryland, gone canvassing and, if my experience is any indication, it certainly seems his field operation is very effective and systematic.

I also appreciate the fact that his campaign doesn't have surrogates spreading sleaze the way Mark Penn has tried to do (and Bill Clinton, at least in S.C. before they muzzled him). Most of his top advisors seem content to remain behind the scenes and I think that's a good thing.

A final point -- what executive experience does Hillary have? If running the health care task force is an example, that does not exactly speak well of her management skills. And what executive experience does John McCain have?

In general I agree with Genghis (a good campaign, a better campaign, with Clinton's biggest weakness being the rapid-change of message, tone, slogans, etc.). But there is one other difference that I see, and which has been decisive for me: call it the Rove factor.

The badly misleading, last-minute mailers in NH (and elsewhere, I gather); the deliberate and exploited misreading of Obama's statements re: Reagan and 'party of ideas;' the lawsuit in Nev.; pullling out the 'slumlord' (Obama's only 'sketchy' contact that I've heard of) when he has refrained from mentioning ..... oh, where to start? ... all the potential scandals lurking in their closets. And the tacky moments - like leaving SC without a thank you but throwing that 'you wonderful volunteers' party in FL. Given THAT contrast between the two campaigns, I would always vote for the 'non-Rovian' one, the more dignified one. I truly believe what Obama is saying: that this sort of thing tells you more about how they will govern in the White House than anything else.

As I may have mentioned before, I'm a great believer in the Emerson maxim: "The end preexists in the means." A change in the WAY our president goes about making decisions and governing is the change that I want above all others. Clinton doesn't promise or show any indication of that change; Obama does. For that matter, I think McCain does as well.

One other note: I looked in on the comments here to learn what the Clinton supporters were saying on their candidate's behalf on this particular issue (since obviously I consider it one of the most important ones). Silence, at least so far. Somehow that's very sad.

Bullshit. People following you is a symptom of folk desparate for hope. I'm glad that Obama provides that symbol.

A leader leads. Obama has had several opportunities to lead and has shirked off to go campaigning.

Obama took the oath to defend the Constitution. Yet Mukasey is our Attorney's General because his vote was worthless and his voice was mute . . . You know how I know this? He told us right afterwards. If just stood up and said "No." and kept telling us why Mukasey would be otherwise employed. It is the power of the last sane man in Washington DC and he specifically chose to avoid it then glibbly brag about running away. The same senerio stands for Telecomm immunity. If Obama would have stood up once, the game woulda been over. We woulda declared him 'god'.

Character counts and Obama has shown his more than once.

You know, leadership is probably one of Obama's weakest points. Incredible that he'd want to highlight this. When one starts talking about 'leadership' I suspect voters will gravitate to those will military experience. Clinton doesn't have that but I think she can address this substantively vis a vis with McCain. Sorry, I'm sure it will disappoint a lot of folks, but Obama is simply a wanna be in the leadership department.

Anybody suggesting otherwise is totally and absolutely clueless and had really drank too much Kool-Aid. If you are an Obama support (e.g., Michael A), I suggest you quickly change the subject or respond disparagingly.

Excellent, another Michael A - Matthew Weaver face off. Let the fireworks begin!

Genghis, I thank you for your serious discussion(s). Yes, Obama gets some credit for his campaign and I do not mean to deflate this. But, this is limited leadership experience and I think it is a serious mistake to be highlighting it as an asset when it is clearly one of his weaker points. He's second to Clinton as you point out, and both are clearly second to McCain. Obama has far more advantageous areas to highlight and use to counter the leadership angle.

Further, considering the campaign and effort, they all do this so he has no advantage in leadership realm. Back around the Nevada caucus Obama stated he was not COO material and was disorganized. I have not see him say much to clarify this self-inflicted cut.

Looking into the fall, both candidates, and expecially Obama if he becomes the nominee, will have to address leadership. I spent time in the military myself, I've ran and do run my own business, I have managed large staffs and budgets, hiring people into management and non-management positions, so I am not devoid of some experience in this arena. Very simply Obama is going to have a very serious challenge convincing anyone that he has leadership experience compared to McCain. He can show more competence than Bush Jr. but I'm afraid on this topic McCain and the Republicans will eat him alive.

And regarding Michael A. Your are right, I should simply ignore the distracting posts instead of baiting them. I wonder if they get per-mention revenue from the Web site they so often hawk? Okay, enough...

>>>Well, Elizabeth2, your wish was granted. Satisfied?

Sigh. No. I had hoped for some serious, subtantive defense from the other supporters -- you know, a real dialog. But, given the "defense of Clinton" posts that have appeared, I think she was doing better when it was simply silence.

Sorry I wished? Yeah.

Sen. Obama has not been tested against a Republican machine, with its 527 groups, 24/7 opposition research, and uncanny ability to take a single misstep and make it the focus of the campaign. The major media and much of the internet (TPM, Huff Post, etc) has given him a pass and lulled his supporters into a false sense of security.

Here is a typical "debate" question that might be asked:

Senator Obama, as a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2003 and 2004, you said repeatedly that you would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush. But since being elected to the Senate, you have voted for more than 300 billion in war funding. Are your votes to fund the war inconsistent with the promises you made to the people of Illinois?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

Mathew Weaver said: But, the legislative angle regarding leadership (to Genghis' point) may be helpful if, and only if, he has some meaningful legislative accomplishments to claim.

First, all three major candidates for once are senators, and none, that I know of, has much significant executive experience. (Even if you count Hillary's time at the White House, you have to admit that she wasn't the president; she was an unofficial employee of the executive.)

Second, here are three of Obama's legislative accomplishments that should matter quite a bit to regular readers of TPM:
1. As a state senator, he passed a law requiring all death penalty interrogations and confessions to be videotaped. This is in a state where 13 of the 23 people on death row were found to be innocent (not by technicality, but vindicated by hard evidence) and where Cook county deputies had a well-known 30-year history of torturing suspects into confessing for crime (including one who etched in the metal bench of the interrogation room that he was being tortured into his confession). But for all that, and despite sincere outrage by many in Illinois politics, they were not able to make any substantial improvements because of the entrenched interests of the police and the fact that politicians were afraid to appear soft on crime. Those deputies retired from the force; managed to stall the investigations past the statute of limitations; and are happily collecting their pensions today. Lots of failed attempts or symbolic attempts to fix the system have been made, but Obama's law, which he passed by saying it was in the interests of both the prisoners and the officers that there be no chance of coerced confessions, and for which he resisted the pushed-compromise of only videotaping the confession part, is a law that will make more of a substantial difference in the lives of African Americans accused of crimes in Chicago (the primary targets of torture) than any other law I can think of passed in the last 2 decades. (disclosure: many of my relatives are Irish cops in Chicago. I pray that none of them were involved in these activities, but they have confirmed to my mother that they did take place as a routine matter for decades.)

2. The Illinois campain finance reform law; google for goverment; and Federal Ethics Reform law, that CREW and others have endorsed as the most sweeping ethics laws in...decades? ever?

3. He just voted against immunizing the telecoms for violating our civil rights. Hillary just voted "absent."

Genghis,

By the way, I served as an enlisted member of the Navy and my wife completed service in the Army as a Captain. She's not into politics by any stretch of the imagination. I shared with her Obama's claim to leadership and how that might compare with Clinton or McCain. She was aghast that he'd venture to compare his experience with McCain. Somehow I do not think her response is much different that a lot of folks will be.

Genghis, I was impressed by your posts and those of others here, so I decided to do a little digging on the squadron size issue for you. Here's what I uncovered:

“When his time at the war college was up, McCain was assigned to the Replacement Air Group 174 in Jacksonville. The squadron trained pilots to fly A-7 fighter planes and was the largest Navy squadron in the country, with about 1,000 sailors and 75 planes. It was also among the Navy’s more dysfunctional units. Defense budget cuts had left the squad without resources to buy replacement parts for damaged planes, and nearly 20 had been grounded for more than 60 days - some for years - when McCain arrived.

His first months were spent as the squadron’s executive officer, where he learned to fly the A-7 and mastered the workings of the unit. In 1976, he was made commander of the entire squadron, an unusual promotion given McCain’s limited command experience. The Navy’s policy was to catch up the POWs with their contemporaries, despite their missed years of service, said Adm. Jim Holloway, then the chief of naval operations, and the policy helped McCain get the job. Still, the promotion raised a few eyebrows.

So did McCain’s ambitions. Rather than sticking to the status quo, McCain immediately set about repairing the unit’s ailing planes. When the squadron’s department heads tried to discourage him, he fired them and replaced them with younger, more ambitious officers.

Carl Smith, a flight instructor who was among those McCain chose for leadership, said McCain called a meeting of the entire squadron staff, where he told them that he planned to get every plane running again before his command was up. Smith said there was no reason to think that the goal was achievable, but McCain set his sights high and then sought about convincing the rest of the squadron. After sending a letter informing his commanders of his plan, he made the rounds, visiting every shop and encouraging his pilots and repair crews.

“Just through his marvelous way of motivating people, he turned that squadron around in no time at all and just had everybody pulling together in another direction towards a very clearly defined goal,” Smith said. “People were working overtime. They were coming in to do jobs when it wasn’t their shift. It was absolutely inspired behavior.”

The day before McCain’s assignment was up, Smith flew the last of the squadron’s grounded planes. As McCain describes it in his memoir Worth the Fighting For, the plane was barely ready for the test and flew with its landing gear down, but it flew. That year, the squadron received its first ever Meritorious Unit Citation.”

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/FRONTPAGE/712310303

I'm here in Jacksonville, where Cecil Field is located; the city still has a very strong naval presence with NAS JAX (Cecil is now closed). Not connected at all with the military, but know that McCain is very well-regarded by those in service here.