Is Senator Clinton a good manager?

Posted Feb 22nd 2008 10:40AM by Peter Cohan
Filed under: Politics

Senator Clinton has touted herself as someone who excels at the "prose" of governing -- not the "poetry" of campaigning. So as someone who voted for Barack Obama in the Massachusetts primary, I was interested in the New York Times reports that her use of campaign funds indicate a pattern of poor resource allocation. This evidence undercuts her claims of management competence.

Here are some notable examples of mismanagement of the $106 million Clinton has raised so far:

$100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses which Obama won;
$275,000 to Sunrise Communications, a South Carolina firm that was supposed to turn out black voters for her and collected nearly $800,000 in total. Obama won South Carolina;
$25,000 spent at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas and another $5,000 the Four Seasons there -- She won the vote there but received fewer delegates than Obama; and
$5 million spent on top consultants in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Based on the way they raise and spend money, it looks like Obama is a better manager than Clinton. For instance, Clinton came into January with a cash advantage over Obama -- her $19 million exceeded his $13 million. They both spent about $1 million a day, but she was weaker at raising money than he was and ended the month in the red, forcing her to lend her campaign $5 million, while he had $19 million for the coming contests.

If Clinton was winning, people would not question her management skills. It's ironic, though, that she tries to portray herself as better than Obama at getting things done when she is under performing when it comes to managing her own campaign.

My hunch is that it's more complicated to run the U.S. than to run a presidential campaign. Should voters trust her to manage the country better than she's managed her own campaign?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Tags: clinton, obama

Print this

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

2-22-2008 @ 10:55AM

saradm16 said...

Well, I think we can see what we got with the past 7 years of having an MBA president as "manager in chief." Look at this mess! I mean, really. How much more shameful could it possibly get!

2-22-2008 @ 11:16AM

dennis said...

I believe these are unfair judgments based on 5.5 million dollars of use. Where's the rest?

Anyone can point at a candidates failures or bad management. If you can sit there and claim Obama is mistake free, than you truly do need Obama's "Google for Government" idea. Even he will say he's made a few fiscal errors.

Plus, a presidential campaign isn't 100% run by the candidate. There are campaign managers that make these decisions for her. She needs to concentrate on creating policies, plans, and strategy for the U.S. and its people. Don't ya agree?

I'm not against Obama. In fact I'm completely torn between the two candidates b/c I feel one is more personable than the other, but the other has been in office with the world looking her in the eye dead on.

It's difficult to put a premium on experience or truly fresh, innovative ideas.

Remember, ideas don't always work out; neither does experience...people must make their own decisions, that's what a democratic government is all about. And that decions must be made on a completely subjective analysis. But when there are clearly one sided articles based solely on money, you tend to send a biased message. You're creating a post hoc fallacy.

Also, who cares how she uses money that was donated to her as long as it's used for campaign purposes. My parents never called me financially irresponsible when I spent money on candy, and I would doubt your parents did either.