Obama's Executive Experience

Clinton says he has none, and repeatedly say that Clinton is the right choice because she'll be ready to lead "from Day One". But Andrew Sullivan points to the only direct comparison we have between Clinton's and Obama's executive leadership capabilities: their campaigns. Clinton started the campaign will all the money, all the connections, and the biggest political machine this side of Karl Rove behind her (and, it should be noted, the support of Rove as well, since Rove considers Clinton to be beatable).

And yet? Obama has won this campaign. He may not win the nomination in the end, but his campaign has bettered Clinton's in nearly every respect: fund-raising, organization, grass-roots support. He has won every caucus state in the Democratic primary thus far, and this requires strong organization and mobilization. Clinton, with all the king's horses and men behind her, has turned in a lackluster performance. Obama is currently leading in the pledged delegate count (and has since Iowa), and only trails in the total delegate count because of Clinton's entrenched support among superdelegates.

There is a direct comparison between the executive capabilities of these two candidates; and Obama wins.

UPDATE: Brad DeLong sees it a bit differently:

both have now demonstrated an ability to run an excellent political campaign. Running a successful presidential political campaign is not the same thing as governing a country, but both have demonstrated substantial administrative competence over the past two years--and neither has betrayed the moral failure of telling big lies or making themselves hostage to special interests in the way that, say, George H.W. Bush did and thus crippled their presidency in advance. A Barack Obama who was just a pretty face who could give a nice speech could not have run the campaign he has run over the past two years. And the Hilary Rodham Clinton who made such an administrative mess of health reform in 1993-1994 could not have run the campaign she has run over the past two years. Thus I am now confident that either has a reasonable shot of being in the top 20% of American presidents.

Despite having proudly worked in the Clinton administration, he voted for Obama "because [Obama] gives a really nice speech," and all other categories were in a virtual tie.

I agree that Clinton's campaign has been decently-run. There haven't been any major screw-ups. But her campaign has been remarkably... conservative. She hasn't taken any gambles; she's triangulated about her support for the Iraq War, her plan for pulling out of Iraq (she hasn't provided one yet), fiscal responsibility vs. the expansion of social services, etc. Her campaign certainly hasn't demonstrated the bold, transformative leadership that she claims to have delivered for the past 35 years. She has shown herself to be calculating and somewhat savvy, but that's all. Her campaign has not been incompetent, but it has been uninspiring.

Obama, on the other hand, has overcome the massive party apparatus supporting Clinton. He has been more imaginative in his policy prescriptions, more consistent on Iraq, more gracious and optimistic than the Clintons, more able and willing to forge broad coalitions, get new people involved in the political process, and more inspiring.

Obama's campaign has run circles around Clinton's, giving their two starting points. And this is something to consider when looking forward. Clinton is still the front-runner at this point, but if the recent past means anything, my money is on Obama to carry more pledged delegates into the convention. What happens then is anyone's guess.