Where Was This Hillary All Last Year?

The media are making a big deal out of this moment in the Democratic debate.  The story seems to be that Hillary was overly angry or out of control.  Now, I am certainly no fan of Hillary.  If she is elected, I'd seriously consider moving to London for the next four years.  But I don't see what's so bad about this moment.  Her essential point, that making soaring speeches about change is not sufficient, is actually the strongest argument against Obama.  The vibe around him has become so messianic that it is getting a bit ridiculous.  Even if he turned out to be the greatest President in history, Obama is not going to be able to live up to this hype.

The President's job is not primarily to give exciting speeches to the public.  His job is to push his policies through by working with or (sometimes) outflanking Congress.  This is something that is overlooked far too often.  President Bush may be despised by many because of his policy choices,  but he has run rings around Congress and proved to be uncannily successful at defeating resistance from the House and Senate.  His one misstep was on amnesty for illegal immigrants, but that was due more to a complete mis-read of the nation's mood than to Congressional maneuvering.  Remember, that was a bi-partisan initiative.  (And, not inconsequentially, something on which McCain can still be hung in this election.)

So, much as I despise Hillary, she is making a valid point.  Being President is about execution.  That's why they call it the Executive branch.  She's probably not in the best position to make this particular criticism as she doesn't have any real executive experience, but her criticism of the constant bleating about change is pretty spot on. 

And this is really my biggest concern over Obama.  He is intelligent and passionate.  He communicates well and connects with people.  This would give him a powerful shot at being elected with a large majority and, thus, a reasonable mandate.  He is smart enough to surround himself with good policy advisors.  But I can't see anything in his background that gives me confidence that he knows how to be an effective executive who can push his agenda through Congress.  This is why Americans do not typically elect Senators to be President.  They elect Governors.  I don't know if this is a conscious choice for most, but somewhere, voters seem to cotton on to the idea that you should elect somebody with executive experience for the executive job.  This campaign is unusual in that there are really only two real candidates with executive experience (Romney and Giuliani).

Which is why a McCain/Obama race is so interesting.  There is no advantage on political executive experience there.  They are both Senators, but Obama has so little track record in the Senate that he is not open to the attacks on his record there.  McCain is more open (although he is in an unusually strong place on Iraq because he was such a vocal critic of the conduct of the war and Rumsfeld), but the flip side of that is that he has a ton of experience by comparison and he can make a credible case that Obama is far too green by comparison. 

And he'd be right.  I'd prefer it if Obama ran for Governor of Illinois and came back in a few years with a successful record there.  He'd be pretty much unstoppable then and I would feel comfortable that I knew what we were getting.