In Praise of Obama's Bush-Like Efficiency

It is difficult to find many complimentary things to say about George W. Bush. This is especially true for any Democrat, this author included. However, if we can push aside his eight years as President and focus on his two campaigns, particularly his 2000 race against Al Gore, I think there are many things positive things that can be said for Bush and his team, albeit from a purely political standpoint.

Simply put: the Bush campaign, whether you love or loathe Karl Rove, or if you can't stand the thought of the last eight years, was masterful, and one of the most impressive and successful political campaigns in U.S. history. While it remains to be seen if the Obama campaign will be as ultimately successful as Bush-Cheney 2000 and 2004 were -- meaning that Obama actually wins -- there is no question that up to this point, the Obama campaign has been nearly equally in its competence, steadiness, and sheer tactical brilliance from its birth up to today. As an early Clinton supporter, it was probably impossible for me to fully recognize Team Obama's political strengths, much less expound on them. Admittedly, for a long while I had no respect for Obama's political savvy, and I viewed him as a naive dilettante. No longer. No one with any appreciation of political skill -- and I consider myself such a person -- can deny this fact any more.

It is likely that no one in Obama's top hierarchy, not to mention just about any of his fervent supporters and worshippers, would invite or appreciate any comparison of Obama to President Bush. I am sure that most of his supporters would treat this argument as a epitaph, a nasty curse against Barack Obama. But such a reaction assuredly misses the point, and the compliment inherent in the observation. I am not contending that Obama has anything in common with George Bush the President or national leader, but that his campaign itself has much in common with Bush's historically successful campaigns for the presidency.

Looking back at 2000 (and to a lesser extent, 2004), the Bush campaign headed by Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and Joe Allbaugh, was unparalleled in its steadiness, laser-like focus, purposeful manner, and ability to be relentlessly on point at all times. Team Bush had an electoral plan in place from day one, and they stuck to it no matter what was thrown at them through the trials of the campaign.

This is no small feat in the pressure cooker of a presidential campaign. A presidential campaign is like nothing else: with our 24/7 news cycle, it is veritable chaos, and a suffocating atmosphere which will envelope even the sharpest minds. With stories and issues of all stripes being thrown at you every single hour, it is incredibly difficult to stay focused and keep the right perspective. Team Bush was legendary in this respect, as they were able to stay disciplined and in line with their electoral plans at all junctures. This is mostly why they were able to even remain competitive with Al Gore's uneven campaign in a national environment which favored the Democrats.

For the most part, Team Obama has accomplished the same thing. I have been struck day after day with the campaign's steadiness and consistency in the face of an even more relentless media and pervasive Internet influence as that which was present in 2000 and even 2004. Obama's campaign, spear-headed by David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and assuredly others (whose influence most of have no idea of because they do not seek the limelight) has demonstrated time and again the same level-headedness that was pervasive throughout the entire Bush campaign apparatus.

There is no question that the Obama campaign has faced an incredible pressures throughout the primary and general election. Questions about his experience and readiness. The brutal primary and the relentless Hillary Clinton. Reverend Wright. A badly fractured party base coming out of the primary. Constant pressure from nervous Democrats over daily different issues. The 24/7 media monster which has monitored every detail of his life and campaign. Yet, through all of this, the campaign has emerged almost entirely intact, in fact even stronger than when it started, actually learning from its tribulations and scars.

When Obama was taking a lot of hits, he stayed on message and remained resolute. When he fell behind after the Palin pick at the GOP convention, Democratic nervousness reached a fever pitch, and calls for Obama to go on the offensive were deafening. But again Obama's campaign stayed steady, and things quickly turned around. After the primary finally ended, calls for adding Hillary to the ticket were strong, but Obama and his team set out their own course, and there is little question that up to that point and this point, it has worked.

Think of it this way. Obama wisely molded his campaign around the theme of 'change' in a year he and his people recognized that people were looking for something different. However, once he vanquished a quintessential steady establishment candidate in the dangerous primary, he perfectly pivoted and recrafted part of his message in order to become a steady (change) agent in order to counter attacks that he is too inexperienced to be President. He is still the fresh, new, change candidate, but he has ensured that he is perceived as steady enough to win over any voters who may have felt he embodies too much change. Essentially, he has run in two directions at the same, and is no less the wear for it. He has adapted where he needed to without becoming unsteady and erratic like John McCain.

Luck has had a great deal to do with Obama's success. Furthermore, he has certainly had his fans in the mainstream media who have been less than fully critical. Finally, unlike Bush in 2000 who faced a favorable economy and an outgoing President who was relatively popular, Obama has a terribly unpopular opposite party President in office, and a hugely anti-GOP sentiment in the air. All of this is true, and it has fallen into place very nicely for the Illinois Senator for reasons beyond his own skill. But as I like to say, luck in politics sometimes has even more to do with success than any brilliance or skill. You make your breaks when you need to, and Obama and his campaign has used its good fortune and timing to its advantage.

I guess that my point here is that as a former Obama skeptic, I am now a big believer in his political chops. For a political junkie, being labeled a skilled politico might be the highest compliment you can give someone. Obama and his campaign have been nothing short of amazing. Say what you will about President Bush, but when he was running, his team had a plan, and Bush executed it to perfection. There is little chance he would have won otherwise.

Obama too has had a great game plan, and he has stuck to it. Given the favorable environment he is running in, that has been a successful combination so far. His big mistakes are almost non-existent, and his focus is apparent every day. This is in stark contrast to the McCain campaign, which appears rudderless these days, and is obsessed with employing gimmicks and trick plays in order to get back into the contest. As things have gotten tougher -- and yes, the economic problems that have come to light in recent weeks were out of the control of both Obama and McCain themselves -- Obama has remained steady, and McCain has sputtered out of control. This is evident in how their campaigns are being run day-to-day, and the success of Obama's approach is being validated by the polls.

So to Obama supporters I say, take it as an insult if you want, but Obama's campaign has embodied a steely effectiveness which is basically on par with Bush-Cheney 2000, one of the most politically successfully campaigns you will ever see, whether or not you believe it ended up producing a spectacularly failed President. And for this, Team Obama deserves enormous praise from any one who seriously follows politics.