I really do not understand why Obama wanted to go down this road at all.  I'm sure his supporters will argue passionately that his view of the presidency is the best one, because all of his positions turn out to be the right one, but the reality is that there just aren't very many voters who feel like "wow, we really don't want a hands-on president."  So why even get into the argument in the first place?  How does it benefit him?

And just sit there delegating, getting great people--in his estimation--to do their Cabinet jobs but not really bothering with the nuts and bolts of the whole operation.  Bill Clinton was just the opposite; I understand he was something of a micro-manager.  And apparently, the stress of it caused him to do so really weird things or people, e.g. Monica.  I think Hillary will strike a happy medium and be both a visionary and a bureaucrat.

I didn't think so much of Bush last night as I did of Cheney because part of the reason Cheney is so powerful is that he controls the paper. As the Washington Post series made clear he decides what the president sees and hears and so, ultimately, decides most policy issues.  

Leaving the management of government to someone else basically means you're leaving the governing to someone else.  

But for the past 7 years -- it was not the "hands off" approach that pissed me off about Bush... it was the "imperial presidency".

I'm not saying an HRC presidency would be more of the same -- only that power concentration in a single person scares me and IS a campaign issue for me.

It's funny you want to have this conversation now.

But, hey, better late than never. The fact is the problem with this conversation is that a great President, not just a good one, must be both.  Where Obama has gone wrong is to accept the either/or frame. But then maybe he had not choice?

If you think about it, it's a fallacy to liken Obama to President Bush when discussing Obama's so-called "hands-off" approach to leading the country.  If you asked President Bush, I'm sure he would say that he surrounded himself with smart, experienced people, however that was not the source of the myriad problems associated with this presidency.  What Bush really made happen is he surrounded himself with ideologically similar people, and alienated those who dissented from his plans.  Then he and those around him did the exact same thing.  I'm not convinced Barack Obama has any desire to do that.  His methodology has always been inquisitive and inclusive, not believing he has the answers off-hand, but instead waiting to find the right ones.  

As for the "hands-off" approach, I don't claim to be an expert in the inner workings of the Federal government, but I don't believe it's the task of the President to micromanage every level of this vast bureaucracy.  That's the only thing I can think of when I hear the term "hands-on".  If you do that, you're going to make an already glacial bureaucratic machine run even slower.  On a broad-strokes level, a President should be tasked with appointing smart, experienced personnel to executive positions.  Perhaps instead of debating hands-on vs. hands-off, we should consider who Obama and Hillary plan on appointing as heads of these various departments and agencies in our country?  

Come on guys. Actually managing the country does not compare to the excellent speeches Obama will deliver once he becomes president.

Imagine what State of the Union speeches would be like!

Oh it ain't hard to run a government.  Give a few speeches and pose for some photo ops.  The government stuff pretty much runs itself.  Do a lot of delegating.

Obama's plan is the same as W's plan and we all have seen what a huge mess that leads to.

Just on a political strategy level, I was dumbfounded last night when Obama said that he was disorganized and would have to rely on others to run the government. That reinforces what he surely knows is the vulnerable underbelly of his entire candidacy: the perception that he is simply not ready to be President.

Maybe he's got some kind of political death wish?

This goes to the heart of my primary concern about Obama -- he doesn't appear to fully appreciate how small elements of process (legislative process, regulatory process, budgetary process, enforcement process, and the bureaucrats who directly manage these processes) can stymie even relatively large amounts of political will. Put another way: Obama doesn't appeart to quite realize just how many different ways the GOP can mess up his governing mojo as President.

Since we're in Vegas, it seems like an opportune time to throw out the inevitable sports analogy.

Obama can't win this fight on points. He has to score a K.O., or he will be worn down and out eventually. The longer the match goes the less his chances are. In Iowa Barack threw his best first round haymaker, but Clinton got up off the canvas and is starting to connect with those relentless jabs.

I'll add one more concern about the need for a president to run the government.  The civil service ain't what it used to be.  This administration has driven a lot of very good folks out or to the hinterlands.  

Not only is the political part of the government broken, but the career part has been severely weakened.  It cannot take up nearly as much slack as it used to.  It needs a strong hand to put it back together again.

Obama said in yesterday's debate that people want a President who can bring people together. Now I don't diagree, but I imagine they want more so a smart, competent President, who doesn't have to overrely on  advisors like Bush has. This is a powerful arguement for Hillary to make, and Obama has given her an opening.

I don't know where these spins come from, if not the Clinton campaign. Was Reagan popular because he was hands on? Bush is unpopular not because he isn't hands on, it's because his entire agenda extremist, ideological, and irrational, and most importantly, a failure.

now we know: she didn't learn a thing.

we've had several presidents in my lifetime who were hands-on micromanagers.  we have nixon, who was so intent to run his government that he directed the plumbers unit.  then we had jimmy carter, who's reputation for micro-management i figured would never be surpassed.

then we have hillary herself, who's hands-on management of health care reform led to her biggest accomplishment.  add to that bill clinton's belief that he could do what he wanted, too -- and it got us "don't ask, don't tell."  and now we have george bush, who refuses input from others, believes his own advice is better than the rest, and may be the only person who thinks he's successful.

and hillary thinks this a good model to follow?

you would have thought hillary was smarter than that.  obviously not...

I can picture it, I can hear it:

Obama:  "Brownie here is going a heckuva job"

I have a brilliant idea: maybe he said this to get more endorsements? (Just think, if you endorse and are picked for his cabinet or VP, you could end out running the country!)

We can argue in the abstract about what 'hands-on' might mean to different people. What it means to Hillary is obviously what she and Bill did in their 12 years in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion and 8 years in the White House. Which resulted in, among other things, balancing the budget and paying down the National Debt.

http://userpic.livejournal.com/69609345/ 14414315

Obama's argument is that the job of the President is not to micromanage the federal government. It is not to micromanage the White House. The President needs to put forward a clear policy vision and agenda, marshal political support for that agenda, and then appoint the most competent people to implement it. The most important part of that is the willingness to take advice wherever he/she can find it and the sound judgment and experience to weigh that advice properly--because there's no way any one person, no matter how brilliant, can be an expert in every policy area or can come up with every legislative strategy to pass bills through Congress. So yes, the President must be a good manager. But whether or not he/she is personally organized or even particularly disciplined is irrelevant. Bill Clinton was pretty unorganized and undisciplined, if I recall correctly. But he was a good President.

To pick up from what some guy said on Ben Smith's blog, this is why Presidents have a Chief of Staff: to micromanage all the little crap so that the President can deal with the big picture stuff. Of course the President needs the skill to pick the right Chief of Staff. But that's a very different skillset.    

I suppose Mr. Obama will have to look into the eyes of his cabinet, see their souls and trust that everything will be fine.

I don't get, from the Obama quote above, that he's advocating a "hands-off" approach at all.  Let's look at the actual words that came out of his mouth,:

"I am very good at teasing out from people who are smarter than me what the issues are and how we resolve them,...But I'm not an operating officer."

Now, to me that doesn't sound like he's going to spend six months out of the year clearing brush.  It sounds like, instead of trying to run every government department himself, he's going to give those people direction, and then trust them to do their jobs well.  [i]That's how a good manager works.[/i]

The best bosses I've ever had have been ones who said, "here's what I need from you; here's what you can do better," and then left me alone to do my job.  The worst ones were constant meddlers, who tried to micromanage everything instead of just letting me work.  Worse still (although I've never had a boss like this) would be someone who takes a 3-month vacation to his estate in Texas and doesn't notice that my department is on fire.

Now, maybe it's just me, but the first approach (Obama) doesn't really resemble the third approach (Bush) in any way.

Honestly, based on these two approaches, I really think an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would be a great team once in office.  He has "the vision thing"; she has the policy-wonk knowledge.  She'd be a great Al Gore to his Bill Clinton.  Of course, I can't see either of them taking the second spot on the ticket, so we'll never know.

So Obama is fawning and gushing over Reagan to pander to the right? The ersatz Gipper who introduced the term/adjective "homeless" into our American vocabulary. Perhaps he's recalling  people pushing shopping carts with all their worldy belongings in numbers previously unseen or imagined. Reaganomics? Reagan said deficits don't matter. Anyone believe that bullsh!t? Is he (Obama) out of his mind? It must really be a  pain in the ass to wake up every day and constantly defend this clown. He simply is not a leader. Yet. And the I'm a uniter, not a divider theme has already been perpetrated in another playbook.    

Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

I'll bet you our veterans would really appreciate a functioning government that is there to help. This same kind of thinking led to the tragegy of Walter Reed. Katrina. The mining disaters. Poison from China. Not reading the 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' daily briefing. Give me hands on please.
A contempt of government will not allow one to govern properly. The next POTUS is is really going to need to do some heavy lifting to get us out of this mess.

Now what kills me is we have some bozos slamming Bill Clinton's presidency while their candidate of choice is hearting rightwingers with their make believe hero.(That means Reagan to you Obama supporters)
Why do I often get the idea that many Obama supporters are incapable of nuanced thinking and may very well have previously voted for Sanjaya? And let's not forget many of them seem to share a more than  healthy dose of contempt for history.
They should be glad EST isn't recruiting anymore.

Hillary's views on a strong executive are consistent with the intent of our founders. As such, her views more clearly reflect American values for good government.

Hemp-advocate Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 70:

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?

The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

Repugs and the Bush administration have a hands-off, let-the-buyer-beware approach to government. That qualifies as bad government.

That's just some more of the Repugs anti-American values philosophy.

Clearly, Hillary is the candidate that best reflects and expresses an affirmation of American values. She needs to point out that her views best reflect, and are consistent with, American values.