Is Ryan Ready . . .

August 14, 2012, 9:30 a.m. . . . To Be President?
What is the number one job of the Vice President of the United States?

In the words of Governor Mitt Romney, when introducing his pick for vice president last Saturday [August 11], it is to be "the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan!"



Aside from the possibility of becoming the next president, Senator Bob Dole described the other tasks of the vice-presidency as merely "indoor work with no heavy lifting."

Vice President John Nance "Cactus Jack" Garner of Texas (1933-41) said, in his most erudite Texas-speak, that the vice-presidency was "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

Nonetheless, it's no joking matter when it falls to the vice president to assume his most awesome and highest responsibility, and he or she instantly becomes "the next president of the United States" for real.

Nor is this just a theoretical possibility, sufficiently unlikely to warrant playing the odds and taking the risk that an unqualified vice president will never have to take on those responsibilities. Nine of our vice presidents have become president through the death, resignation or impeachment of the president. That's nine out of 44; over 20 percent.

So I think it's not only fair, it is imperative, that we take a look at Congressman Paul Ryan's -- and Vice President Joe Biden's -- qualifications to be president.

As I wrote when evaluating Governor Mitt Romney's qualifications, "Why Mitt Romney?" March 22, 2012,

In 2007-08, as the candidates were touting their "experience" as qualifying them to be president, I gave some thought to "Just what is the experience that would qualify someone to be president?" Here's an abbreviated excerpt from an op ed column I wrote on the subject at that time:

There’s no perfect, qualifying “experience.” But two things can help.

One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation.

The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: city, county and state government; the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; international organizations and embassies; labor unions and Wall Street, among others.

By these standards both Democrats [Senators Clinton and Obama] and Sen. John McCain are unimpressive.

Nicholas Johnson, "Politics: Assessing Candidates' 'Experience,'" The Gazette, March 30, 2008, p. A9, embedded in blog, with links to many more items, in "Gazette Op Ed: Candidates' 'Experience,'" March 30, 2008 ("Compare these candidates’ 'experience' with that of Gov. Bill Richardson: 15 years’ legislative experience in the U.S. House, understanding of state government from two terms as governor and of federal government from [his service as Secretary of] the Department of Energy, the significant administrative experience as a governor and cabinet secretary and the international perspective of a former U.N. ambassador. His international accomplishments, including successful hostage negotiations with Saddam Hussein and others, inspired five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.")

At that time Governor Bill Richardson came the closest to the range of experiences I thought useful. Mitt Romney doesn't rank that high, given his relative lack of experience with the House, Senate, White House, and Cabinet positions. And his work with the Olympics, while useful, is not exactly the same as the State Department, an ambassadorship, or the United Nations, World Bank, IMF or other international organization. But he has been a governor (and in a state where he had to work with Democrats), which comes the closest to any training we have for the presidency, he's administered other large institutions (Bain; the Olympics; this year's campaign), and certainly has ties with Wall Street and the business community.

Another example of a Republican with Richardson's range of experience is former President George H.W. Bush. Not only did he come to the job with eight years experience as vice president, he had also been a member of the House of Representatives, an ambassador to the United Nations and envoy to China, director of the CIA, and someone with experience in both the oil and banking business. "George H.W. Bush", Wikipedia.org.

(In that evaluation of Romney, I made clear that although his positions on most major issues differed from mine, he also had strengths, notwithstanding his lack of experiences that would be useful for a president to have had (see, e.g., "Romney as Ambassador in Chief," July 31, 2012):

As I've learned more about Romney, I've become increasingly impressed with his smarts, education, experience, accomplishments, commitment to public service, and obvious managerial ability in running a presidential campaign. Today I would say of him (as I said earlier [2008] about Jon Huntsman), Mitt Romney is much, much better than just the "least worst Republican." . . .

I may well be wrong, but what others see as flip-flopping I see as managerial pragmatism. . . . Some others are troubled by his Mormon religion. I see it as a positive. . . . Whether you call it religion, ethics, or morality, I think it useful for individuals (and the communities in which they live) to carry a moral compass that they check for directions from time to time. Maybe it's no more than a hunch, but Romney seems to have that. . . .

Nor do I find his seeming inability to speak the language of ordinary Americans disqualifying -- that his tie to NASCAR fans is that he knows a number of folks who own race teams, his appeal to UAW members is that his wife has two Cadillac cars . . .. I find such unscripted comments almost charming in an odd sort of way. . . . What I see in Romney is a bright, well informed, analytical, hard working, focused, pragmatic, problem-solving manager.

I mention this simply to make the point that my effort to evaluate Paul Ryan's qualifications is not an effort to put down the Romney-Ryan ticket, any more than my finding both Senators Clinton and Obama to be short on experience (when at least Clinton was claiming she had it) was an effort to put down the Democratic Party's effort to elect a president.

I will also note, in that connection, that then-Senator Biden did not score much better on my experience scale in 2008 than did Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama. See "Joe Biden," Wikipedia.org; "It's Biden -- for 'Experience'?" August 23, 2008.

In that Joe Biden blog entry there is a point that bears repeating with regard to Paul Ryan:

I don't think a breadth of experience is a prerequisite to being president (or vice president). Someone can be perfectly well qualified to be president without it. Few of our presidents have had the breadth of experience of, say, President George H.W. Bush (the current president's father), or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. And many have done quite well without it.

All I am saying is that if all (or most of) what one has ever done is to be a member of the United States Senate [to which I would now add with regard to Ryan, "or House"], given the range of experience that would be helpful for a president to have had, it's a little silly to talk about how "qualified" they are for the job based on that very narrow and limited experience, regardless of how long they've done it.

Clearly, Senator Biden brings "foreign policy" experience [as Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee], with emphasis on "policy." He certainly has established relationships among many of the world's leaders. He's brighter, has better judgment, and is far more knowledgeable than Senator McCain on such matters. It's just that it's not the equivalent of having had responsibility for making the decisions, and administering the follow up, as Secretary of State or Defense, or even National Security Adviser to the President.

By now, of course, Vice President Joe Biden has had four years of experience serving as vice president. It's hard to get any better "experience" than that. So, by now, he clearly has the edge on Paul Ryan in that department. (Similarly, Romney, today, scores better on the experience scale than Obama did in 2008. But by now, with four years' experience as president, President Obama clearly has the experience edge over Romney.)

Paul Ryan's relative lack of experience is no more disqualifying for him in 2012 than it was for Joe Biden in 2008. It is, however, a negative, to be balanced against whatever positives one may perceive.

Let's examine the categories used in the past.

(1) "One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation." Ryan has spent his entire post-college 42-year life in politics, first as a staffer, and subsequently as a member of Congress (with some earlier successful forays into student politics). He has had no administrative or managerial experience running any large institution, let alone anything the size of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.

"The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: (2) city, county and state government; (3) the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; (4) international organizations and embassies; the Pentagon, or national security organizations; (5) labor unions and Wall Street, among others."

Congressman Ryan's primary strength is his successful career in the U.S. House of Representatives, a group of 435 in which he rose to the top (as Chair, Budget Committee) primarily while in his thirties.

But (2) he does not have direct experience with the impact of the federal government on state and local government, in that he has never served as mayor or council member of a city, county supervisor, member of a state legislature or governor, or even school board member (so far as I know).

(3) He has had no experience heading, or even working in, the federal executive branch or administrative agencies, with direct knowledge of the impact of the White House and Congress on their work. He has not worked as a judge, or as a law clerk to one; as he is not a lawyer -- something I assume some will see as a great asset :>).

(4) Neither he nor Romney have the foreign relations experience of running, or even working in, the State Department, a foreign embassy as an ambassador, or the United Nations, World Bank, IMF or other international organization. (Romney illustrated the consequences of a president with a lack of foreign relations acumen during his recent trip to London, Israel and Poland. "Romney as Ambassador-in-Chief," July 31, 2012. Vice presidents are often called upon to provide some of our nation's outreach to other countries. Would Ryan have done any better than Romney?)

Neither has headed agencies of, or even worked inside, the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, or other organizations focused on national security. I believe (but have not confirmed) that neither even served in any way in the U.S. military.

(5) Romney clearly has useful ties to Wall Street and the business community generally. Ryan's ties to labor are a little more spotty. His family's business, Ryan Construction, benefits from the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement that federal construction projects pay workers the "prevailing wage." Unions like that. Overall, however, his votes against union members' interests have produced a 16% rating from the AFL-CIO. See, e.g., Laura Clawson, "Paul Ryan is with unions on one lone issue—the one connected to his family's business," Daily Kos, August 13, 2012.

So what is the answer to the question with which I began: "Is Ryan Ready to be President?" "Certainly not," we'd have to say, on the basis of his prior range of experience regarding those things that would be useful to a president. On the other hand, he is certainly not the first vice presidential candidate to have been lacking in that kind of experience. And at least some of them have turned out to be not only "qualified," but among our best presidents when their time came to be tested. # # #

Gazette Op Ed: Candidates' "Experience"

March 30, 2008, 7:20 a.m.; March 31, 2008, 9:00 a.m. [clarification at bottom of entry]

Politics: Assessing Candidates' "Experience"

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette

March 30, 2008, p. A9
There’s little significant difference between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as lawyers who are well educated, thoughtful, widely informed and fully capable of formulating proposals on numerous topics. Both are articulate, though Obama has the charisma advantage.

But the experience qualifying someone to be president requires a lot more than having been married to one, proposing good ideas or world travel.

As someone who has served during the administrations of three presidents, I believe the presidency is one of the most complex administrative jobs imaginable.

There’s no perfect, qualifying “experience.” But two things can help.

One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation.

The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: city, county and state government; the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; international organizations and embassies; labor unions and Wall Street, among others.

By these standards both Democrats and Sen. John McCain are unimpressive.

None has served as mayor or governor; none has headed a cabinet department; none has helped administer the Pentagon or CIA; none has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has been a union officer or corporate CEO. None has headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties.

Each has the “legislative experience” of making speeches and signing bills, though none as House speaker or Senate leader. McCain has 25 years in the U.S. House and Senate, Obama 12 years in the Illinois and U.S. senates and Clinton the least with eight years in the U.S. Senate.

McCain and Obama have little to no administrative experience, and Clinton’s record is spare and negative.

Her Web site acknowledges her health care efforts “did not succeed,” her administration of the campaign has been charitably characterized as “a disaster” and critics say she’s grossly exaggerating her “experience” and significance of contributions to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and peace in Ireland and Kosovo.

By contrast, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign chairman, David Wilhelm, said, “I know organizational excellence when I see it” and characterizes Obama’s campaign as “a model.” Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Clinton supporter, said Obama has administered his campaign “with real discipline.”

Compare these candidates’ “experience” with that of Gov. Bill Richardson: 15 years’ legislative experience in the U.S. House, understanding of state government from two terms as governor and of federal government from the Department of Energy, the significant administrative experience as a governor and cabinet secretary and the international perspective of a former U.N. ambassador. His international accomplishments, including successful hostage negotiations with Saddam Hussein and others, inspired five Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

[As political junkies may recall, Governor Richardson's experience was creatively made the subject of one of his early commercials that attracted a lot of attention and boosted his support early on -- though not enough to keep him in the race -- with its final line from a job interviewer: "So, what makes you think you can be president?"

I’m not suggesting a Richardson write-in campaign. But his is the kind of resume that would provide legitimate support for a presidential candidate’s claims to being more experienced — “tested” and “ready from day one” — than any of the three now running.

That doesn’t mean any of the three is unqualified to be president or is inadequately experienced. It just means it’s a bit disingenuous for them to argue their experience makes them more qualified than the others.

As former State Department Policy Planning Director Greg Craig has said: “When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed ‘the commander in chief test’ is simply not supported by her record.”

McCain and Obama have life experiences no less valuable that those of Clinton. McCain was a POW. Obama’s community organizing background gives him a unique citizen-empowerment, government-from-the-bottomup-not-top-down, approach to the presidency.

All are qualified; none is uniquely “experienced.” Clinton loses credibility by suggesting otherwise.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City, a three-time presidential appointee and one-time congressional candidate, maintains http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

[Prior blog entries regarding candidates "experience" include,

Nicholas Johnson, "Compassion and Experience," March 27, 2008;

Nicholas Johnson, "Clinton Shouldn't Lie About What's Videotaped," March 22, 2008;

Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary Makes Up Experience," March 14, 21, 2008;

Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary's Lack of Qualifications," March 8, 10, 11, 12, 2008.]

March 31: State29 has commented regarding this column that "Nicholas Johnson has an Op Ed . . . about the kind of 'experience' a Presidential candidate should have. He isn't impressed with any of the choices on either side of the aisle, and has a bit of a longing for Bill Richardson." State29, "Experience, Schmerience," March 30, 2008. Because State29 is nothing if not perceptive and a close reader, I suspect others may have drawn these conclusions as well.

So, to clarify:

1. I intended one message and one message only in this column. It's contained in the concluding two sentences: "All [Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain] are qualified; none is uniquely 'experienced.' Clinton loses credibility by suggesting otherwise." In short, it was not that "he isn't impressed with any of the choices on either side of the aisle." It was simply that to the extent Senator Clinton (or anyone else) thinks "experience" is relevant to "qualifications" the differences between the "experience" of the three are so insignificant that "Clinton loses credibility" by trying to make the case that she should be the preferred candidate because the experience she has had is so much greater than that of the other two.

2. While I do think the kinds of experience I mention in this column are useful for a president, I wouldn't necessarily argue that a president "should have" them. (a) For starters, few if any candidates would be able to have all the categories of experience I mention. (b) There are certainly many examples of presidents with one or more of those categories of experience who have made a mess of things -- our current president (with experience as a governor) included. (c) Similarly, there are good things that can be said about presidents whose predominant experience was as a U.S. senator: Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

3. To the extent I do think "experience" relevant to "qualifications" it the breadth of experience that I find relevant -- for the reasons listed in the column.

4. I wouldn't say "he isn't impressed" with any of the three. I expressly said, "All are qualified." It's just that, to the extent I have enthusiasm for any one or more of them, that enthusiasm comes from "qualifications" other than what's reflected from their breadth of experience.

5. Nor would I say that I have a "longing" for Governor Bill Richardson. I was referring to him, in this context, simply as an illustration, an example, of a candidate who does have a breadth of experience -- "that's what a breadth of experience looks like" -- by way of contrasting his experience with the relative lack of a breadth of experience on the part of Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain. (On the other hand, I would clearly include Richardson among those candidates I would find "qualified," and one whose personal manner made him one of my favorites with whom to spend time.)

It doesn't speak well of my writing, I know, to have to write a second column to explain the first. But I thought it worthwhile to try to clear up my mis-communications. Hopefully, this has done that -- rather than just make it worse.

# # #

Obama Mason and Public Finance

March 21, 2008, 9:45 a.m.

Today's Items Relating to Subjects Followed by This Blog
Obama Campaign
Barry Massey, "Gov. Richardson Endorsing Obama," Associated Press/Washington Post, March 21, 2008, 6:37 a.m. ("New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.").

Score One for President Mason. Look, I don't know what the arguments were pro and con, it may not be the most important issue confronting the University, and I don't even know if it was actually President Sally Mason's idea or something a staffer came up with. But carving out ambulatory medical services from Carver strikes me, intuitively, as a bit of creative analytical thinking worthy of notice and positive comment. Kathryn Fiegen, "Mason: Ambulatory services at UIHC could move; Would help alleviate traffic near hospital," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A1.

Again, on this next story, I don't know the details, but having played a major role as an FCC commissioner in getting the anti-smoking spots on television, and as a former co-director of Iowa's Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy, I was of course interested in this morning's story about the selection of Jim Merchant's replacement as dean of the College of Public Health: Susan J. Curry from the University of Illinois. From all initial descriptions, it looks like a good choice. Diane Heldt, "Healthy Outlook; Illinois-Chicago Educator to Lead Public Health College," The Gazette, March 21, 2008, p. B1.

Public Finance: Murals, Earmarks and Giveaways

Murals. Former Iowa City City Counselor, Bob Elliott, had a little serious fun with his former colleagues in an op ed column this morning. There are all too many examples in public finance (as well as corporate and personal finance) of solutions, or opportunities, that require less money while producing greater benefits. Finding them is a wonderful intellectual challenge that can produces great financial rewards. It seems the City is offering an outfit in Arizona $65,000 to paint a mural on the wall of an indoor swimming pool. Elliot questions whether a mural is an essential element for swimming, but if it is why it wouldn't be both more desirable -- and far cheaper -- to have it done by local artists, including UI and high school students. (There is precedent in the mural done by our alternative high school students under the direction of Hani Elkadi.) Bob Elliott, "Look Locally for Rec Center Art," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A11.

Earmarks. Eliminating earmarks and special interest funding of our Representatives and Senators are among the top priorities of virtually all public interest reformers. Having replaced Congressman Jim Leach with former Cornell College professor Dave Loebsack, we now have a representative who votes with the Congressional Democrats -- but who also takes PAC and lobbyist money, and in this morning's Press-Citizen is defending earmarks. Pamela Brogan, "Loebsack defends earmarks; Says they should go to education, public safety," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A3.

What's wrong with earmarks? "Let me count the ways."

They are unfunded. They enable office holders, at no cost to themselves, to appear to be servicing their district or state by funding special projects, that we're paying for by borrowing from the Chinese today and leaving to our great-grandchildren to pay back tomorrow.

They are not properly vetted. There's a reason Congress creates administrative agencies. Gathering data and doing analysis takes time and expertise Congress doesn't have. To let individual officials envision and create earmarks in the dead of night under a rock is not a very rational approach to comparative project evaluation. Senator Grassley's $50 million for an ill-considered indoor rain forest is one example right here at home. The "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska is another.

They are open to the most rampant corruption and paybacks to campaign contributors.

If Congress is to engage in such project-by-project authorization it should be done through the regular process of bills, sub-committee and committee staff consideration, hearings, reports, ultimate floor debate, passage in both houses, and presidential approval.

But Congress shouldn't be mired in such petty details regardless of the process. Most of these earmarks involve relatively minor (in a three-trillion-dollar budget) items more appropriate for consideration by state legislatures, county boards of supervisors, city councils, local businesses and philanthropists. To the extent they do involve local illustrations of what are, in fact, nationwide needs they should become a part of national programs.

It's not necessary to play the earmarks game "because 'everybody's doing it.'" Everybody's not doing it. There are members of the Senate and House who don't play the game; members who are leading the charge against earmarks. Congressman Loebsack simply chooses not to be among them.

Giveaways. Meanwhile, the state giveaways continue unabated -- $155 million-plus to the likes of Hamlet Protein of Denmark, Hormel, and John Deere. Nor is this all for businesses new to Iowa, or new construction. "Federal Mogul" (now there's a name) would like to buy some equipment to make a new Champion spark plug at its "existing spark plug plant in Burlington"! In addition to the direct cash outlays from grateful Iowa taxpayers to the bottom line of these for-profit corporations (from such funds as the "Community Economic Betterment Account" and "High Quality Jobs Creation Program") there are always the hidden benefits the legislature refuses to reveal to the media and public in detail involving taxes the firms are told they won't have to pay, or the costs of infrastructure support they would otherwise have to pay for themselves that is picked up by the taxpayers. David DeWitte, "Wind-Power Factory to Open in Oelwein," The Gazette, March 21, 2008, p. B8; Associated Press, "State Gives $155M to Business Projects," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 21, 2008, p. A9.

# # #

Hillary's Lack of Qualifications

March 8, 2008, 11:00 a.m., 3:44, 8:41 p.m.; March 10, 2008, 2:00 p.m.; March 11, 2008, 6:15 p.m.; March 12, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Hillary's Experience? What experience?
(For a lighthearted "Saturday Night Live" take on these issues March 8 see the video at the end of this blog entry -- where you will also find the results from Wyoming and Mississippi.)

There's been a lot of talk during the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses about the "experience" and "qualifications" of the candidates.

Senator Hillary Clinton recently surrounded herself with former military officers and American flags and simply proclaimed that both she and Senator John McCain had the experience and qualifications to be "commander-in-chief" -- by which she clearly meant the ability to deal appropriately with another terrorist attack or other domestic emergency, or to take the country into a war that would be professionally conducted and decisively won. About the same time her campaign was running this "3:00 a.m. phone call" political commercial -- showing sleeping children, with an anxious parent fearful for their safety, the commercial asks in effect, "Who do you want in the White House dealing with emergencies of sufficient seriousness that the president must be awakened at 3:00 a.m. to deal with them?" and then closes with a shot of Senator Clinton talking on the phone. (This is the commercial spoofed in the "Saturday Night Live" video.)

I won't comment on the appropriateness of conducting a campaign based on fear -- as President Bush and Vice President Cheney have done with 9/11 and their justifications for starting, and continuing, a war in Iraq. Nor will I dwell on the wisdom of her building up Senator McCain in her effort to contend that she is just as qualified as he is. My point for now is merely the "experience" factor.

For when the Clinton campaign was pressed to provide even one example of her ever having been confronted with a situation remotely similar to what was suggested by the "3:00 a.m. phone call" commercial her campaign spokespersons were, of course, unable to do so.

Not only has she provided little more than her own assertions for the proposition that she is "ready," and "tested," and "experienced," and "qualified" to be "commander-in-chief," her attacks on Senator Obama are equally devoid of support.

She asserts that while she and Senator McCain have the qualifications to be commander-in-chief all that Senator Obama has is a speech in 2002.

This is not the only context in which she has attacked his "lack of experience," ignored the existence of, and substance in, the long list of policy positions on his Web site, or endeavored to trivialize the significance of his charisma, the crowds he has attracted (not to mention the delegate lead he has amassed), the new voters he has potentially brought into the Democratic Party camp, and the education, experience, and philosophical foundations on which he has drawn to bring this about.

There is a hearty irony to her attempt to contrast her "experience" with his.

Don't take my word for it. Read her own words on her Web site. Under "Hillary" the most relevant portions are "Mother & Advocate," "First Lady," and "U.S. Senator." As you read through this material you can't help but be impressed (or depressed) with her almost total absence of administrative experience, and the extent to which her claimed "experience" is precisely what she criticizes in that of Senator Obama: speeches, writing, and "advocacy."

Here are some illustrative excerpts.

"Hillary went to Wellesley College, where she was chosen by her classmates to be the first-ever student commencement speaker. [That's the very first sentence.] . . . Next came Yale Law School, where Hillary . . . began her decades of work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Hillary . . . worked on some of the earliest studies . . .. When Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas, Hillary continued to advocate for children . . .. She . . . played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues . . ..

[As First Lady.] When her husband was elected President in 1992, Hillary's work as a champion for women was recognized . . .. She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women . . .. In the White House, Hillary led efforts to . . .. She helped launch . . .. Thanks in part to her efforts, . . .. As everyone knows, Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed. But her commitment to health care for every American has never wavered. She was instrumental in . . .. Hillary's 1995 book It Takes A Village, . . . became an international best seller. . . . Hillary's autobiography, Living History, was also a best seller.

[As U.S. Senator.] In 2000, Hillary was elected to the United States Senate [and] . . . continued her advocacy for children and families . . .. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary worked with her colleagues . . .. She fought to provide . . .. And she continues to work for . . .. She is . . . working to see that . . .. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .. She has learned first-hand the challenges . . .. Hillary passed legislation . . .. She is an original sponsor of legislation that . . .. She has introduced legislation to . . .. She has supported a variety of . . .. She helped pass legislation that . . .. She has championed legislation to . . .. In the Senate, Hillary has not wavered in her work to . . .. She worked to . . .. She authored . . .. She sponsored legislation . . .. [She] is now leading the fight for . . .. Her strong advocacy for children continues in the Senate. Some of Hillary's proudest achievements have been her . . . legislation . . ., and her legislation to . . .. She has also proposed . . .. She has passed legislation . . .. Hillary has been a powerful advocate for . . .. Her commitment to supporting . . . was hailed by the New York Times as "frank talk. . .." Hillary is one of the original cosponsors . . .. Hillary is strongly committed to . . .. She introduced the . . .."

Now let me put these quotes in context to explain what I do, and do not, mean to suggest with them.

My limited point is simply that her "experience," like that of Senators Obama and McCain, is primarily "life experience" -- plus some useful (but not, standing alone, presidentially-qualifying) legislative experience. Her public interest work, life as First Lady, and brief senate career have been primarily a work of words -- the very thing for which she criticizes Senator Obama in her efforts to set herself apart as somehow more qualified than he is.

That is not to say that she has not spoken out on and written about important issues, volunteered for and otherwise contributed to the staff and boards of non-profit organizations, voted for and otherwise aligned herself with legislation -- much of which I would have agreed with, and even found commendable.

[March 14: However, a little caution may be in order in accepting her assertions of credit for some of what she claims. See Nicholas Johnson, "Hillary Makes Up 'Experience,'" March 14, 2008 (according to a Boston Globe expose, those who actually created and worked to pass the children's health program called SCHIP are irritated by, and refuting, her taking credit for it. Her Web site says that as First Lady "She was instrumental in designing and championing" the program. That blog entry also provides Time magazine's comparable take with regard to her Ireland and Kosovo claims).]

The reason there are ellipses in the place of subject matter in the excerpts above is not because I think those subjects irrelevant or unworthy. It is because the point I wish to make is that each, however commendable, involves speaking and writing. What "championed," "fighting" or "working for" mean in the legislative context is writing and speaking. They mean assigning staff members responsibility for coming up with new legislation (or merely signing on to bills authored by others), questioning witnesses testifying during sub-committee meetings, and talking to colleagues. They do not even necessarily mean that any legislation was ever enacted.

Senators make speeches -- some are creative and courageous speeches, some are lackluster and corrupt speeches, some are speeches they have actually written themselves (though this is rare) and others are merely speeches read from texts provided by staff members or lobbyists. (I have written Senators' speeches on behalf of clients.) But the activity in which senators are engaged, the "experience" they are gaining when they are "fighting" for this or that, is speaking experience.

Clearly, such legislative experience is not insignificant. It's useful experience for a president to have had. It's just not all the experience a president needs.

We take our politics seriously in Iowa.

So prior to the Iowa caucuses I tried to think through a set of "neutral principles" for comparing presidential candidates, and then summarized them in an op ed that was headlined, "Qualities to Keep in Mind When Picking a President" (Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 22, 2008; reproduced in the blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Op Ed: Caucus Choices Analysis," December 22, 2008).

Here are some excerpts from that column:

• Forget "electability." Any Democratic Party nominee is electable in 2008. (Although Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's high negatives create some risk.) Consider their ability to govern.

Experience at everything

All have "experience" at something. But a president needs experience at everything. Who has the broadest, deepest range of experience?

An American president is policy wonk in chief as well as commander in chief. Federal personnel director as well as national cheerleader. They must maintain our economy while improving our foreign relations. Above all, they must have superior, large-institution administrative skills and experience.

When they negotiate and deal with other major institutions it gives them credibility as well as real understanding if they've worked within them: Congress, cabinet positions, municipal and state governments, international organizations, and negotiations with foreign leaders.

We don't have a school for presidents. There's no parliamentary system to provide the ultimate prime ministers both administrative and legislative experience.

Quality rankings

So here are the qualities I'm looking for . . ..

• Experience administering large institutions (state or large city governments, corporations [cabinet departments]) . . ..

• A "people person" with charisma or down-home manner, sense of humor (including self-deprecation), or what Molly Ivins called "Elvis" . . ..

• The understanding and credibility earned by working inside both Washington's executive and legislative branches [cabinet departments, independent regulatory commissions, House and Senate] . . ..

• A willingness to put forward courageous, "best policy" proposals, rather than "starting off backing up" . . ..

• Experience working inside international organizations (e.g., U.N., World Bank). . ..

• Understanding of the elements and process of citizen empowerment [e.g., community organizing]. . ..

• An understanding of foreign policy (as distinguished from administering it) . . ..

• An ability to work with, but an independence from, special interest money and influence (the "Washington Establishment") . . ..

However, Clinton's strength in this department is her weakness. She and Bill could probably name all of their 4,000 presidential appointees in one evening without notes. But part of the reason for their millions from corporate lobbyists and PACs is the Washington Establishment's expectation of another pro-corporate, business-as-usual Clinton administration.

• Experience negotiating with foreign leaders . . ..

• Champion of the underdog . . ..

The column included evaluations by these standards of what was then a large field of candidates. While it did not conclude with an endorsement, New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson obviously was well ranked.

He had, after all, experience in state government (as a governor), federal executive branch government (cabinet; Secretary of Energy), legislative (U.S. House of Representatives), international organizations (U.N. Ambassador), and negotiation (more than one successful release of hostages from hostile countries).

Senators in general, this year's crop of finalists, and Senator Hillary Clinton in particular, do not score very well by these standards -- certainly not well enough for her legitimately to be able to argue that she is "tested" and "qualified" to be president (and "commander-in-chief") while Senator Obama, by contrast, just "doesn't have the necessary experience."

She has not been a mayor, governor, or cabinet officer. She's never served in a state legislature or the U.S. House. She's never held a position in an international organization. She has never (so far as I know) been involved in hostage, trade, treaty or other international negotiations. She's never served in the military or worked in a civilian capacity in the Defense Department. So far as I know, as First Lady she did not even have the clearance to see classified documents that I had as U.S. Maritime Administrator. She's never run a major state or federal government department, or even functioned as a corporate CEO.

I do not assert that Senator Obama is more qualified, or has more experience, than has Senator Clinton -- nor, it should be noted, does he make that claim. Frankly, I think that while their life, and legislative, experiences are somewhat different, they are not, to borrow a phrase, "differences that make a difference" when it comes to their qualifications as a potential president.

If anything, Senator Obama has three additional relevant categories of experience that she does not. One is state legislative experience. (Not incidentally, when his years in the Illinois legislature are added to his years in the U.S. Senate he ends up having more years of legislative experience than she has.) Second, his race, his ties to Kenya, his having lived in Indonesia and among the diverse populations of Hawaii, exceed in my view -- but at least equal -- the ability to improve America's relations abroad that Senator Clinton may have gained from "traveling in 80 countries." Finally, and for reasons I won't take space, and your time, to lay out now, I put enormous weight on his community organizing experience that I believe underlies much, if not all, of what makes him qualified to be president, an authentic agent of change, and so attractive to millions.

But I'm not making the argument, and accepting responsibility for sustaining the burden of proof, that he is more qualified to be president than she -- only that I think Senator Clinton is not creditable and cannot be taken seriously when she asserts that she should be the preferred choice because she is so much more qualified than he is.

(Nor do I find persuasive the demographic arguments put forward by the Clinton camp:

The issue cannot be constructively characterized as how they've done, one-on-one, running against each other in Democratic Party primaries. It means little that she has, sometimes, drawn more heavily than he from natural Democratic Party demographic groups -- whites, without college education, earning under $50,000 a year (as he has drawn more heavily than her from others). Remember that it is Democratic Party primaries we're talking about here.

The question should be: What evidence is there that -- in a match-up between Senators Obama and McCain -- Democratic Party voters and Independents who voted in primaries for Senator Clinton would vote for Senator McCain rather than Senator Obama? I know of none (although I do have a smattering of anecdotal evidence regarding Independents and Democrats who have told me their first preference is Senator Obama, but that if Senator Clinton ends up as the nominee they will vote for Senator McCain). I don't see that it makes a lot of difference, standing alone, how demographic groups have aligned between Senators Clinton and Obama in a given Democratic Party primary. Moreover, most of the polls I have seen indicate pretty consistently that in one-on-one match-ups with Senator McCain, Senator Obama beats him by more than does Senator Clinton -- most recently 12 points to 6 points.)

There are two things she's done that might be thought of as quasi-administrative in nature.

(1) One was the assignment she had, such as it was, to come up with a health care plan for the Clinton Administration. As an "administrator" of that assignment her failed performance ranked with President Bush's administrative skills with Katrina and management of the Iraq War. Even Senator Clinton acknowledges on her Web site, "As everyone knows, Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed."

(2) The other is her administration of her current presidential campaign. Even her cheerleader-in-chief, her husband and former president Bill Clinton, acknowledges it has been a disaster. Starting off with more money from lobbyists and PACs than any other candidate in either party (I believe), and one of the most powerful political organizations of the 20th Century, with predictions all around that it was hers to lose -- Senator Obama, coming out of nowhere, has been able to amass more state victories (12 in a row at one point), virtually all caucus victories, more popular votes, and more elected delegates (currently about a 150 delegate margin). Her staff has been bickering, some have left, money has been squandered, she had to loan her campaign $5 million of her own money (while continuing to refuse to make public -- as Senator Obama has -- the tax returns that might indicate where that money came from), the campaign's focus continues to shift from "experience" to "solutions" to "tears" to "humor" ("Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show") to, now that she's finally "found her voice," a slash and burn, throw everything including the kitchen sink at Senator Obama whether it's true or not, negative campaign.

This is not just a very thin resume for someone aspiring to assume the most complex administrative job in the world, it's also not very reassuring.

(By contrast, David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign chairman who has endorsed Senator Obama, says of the Senator's efforts: “'He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her, . . .. I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model' of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising." Katharine Q. Seelye, "Bill Clinton Campaign Chair Goes for Obama," New York Times: The Caucus, February 13, 2008, 1:58 p.m.

And: "'Senator Obama went where he had to go,' said former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (D), a Clinton backer. 'They had a well-thought-out strategic plan, and they carried it out with real discipline.'" Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, "Downside of Obama Strategy; Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears," Washington Post, March 8, 2008, p. A1.)

She repeatedly refers to her "35 years of experience" -- essentially a reference to everything she's done since leaving law school -- without ever specifying what it was, not to mention how much of it was truly relevant to the work of a president (and, if so, why).

Clearly, she does have seven years' legislative experience as a U.S. Senator -- far less than Senator McCain, but not significantly less than Senator Obama. She has had the "life experience" (including law practice and service on boards) I've already mentioned.

But how much credit can she claim as the spouse of a governor and a president? Based on my own experience, not much.

Do you gain insights and anecdotes from being around (or married to) another? Absolutely. But there is an enormous difference between having decisional responsibility, and merely offering comfort and sympathy to someone who does.

I served as a law clerk to a U.S. Court of Appeals judge (the 5th Circuit's Judge John R. Brown) and a U.S. Supreme Court justice (Justice Hugo Black). (I've just returned from a reunion dinner in the Supreme Court building with other Justice Black clerks and family.) Those experiences, and my ability to extrapolate from them in imagining what other judges do, gives me insights into the judicial process I might otherwise not have. Do they qualify me to be a Court of Appeals judge or Supreme Court justice? Of course not. Would they be of some marginal use were I to be a judge? I suppose.

My wife, Mary Vasey, is one of the nation's experts on "alternative education." She was one of the first to be picked for the national faculty of the Coalition of Essential Schools. She was an early faculty member of Metro High School in Cedar Rapids -- which twice won the U.S. President's award as one of the nation's best high schools. She helped plan the Iowa City alternative high school, Tate. Having retired from Metro, her love of the work, and skill at doing it, is such that she continues to volunteer her time at Tate.

I've lived with her for nearly 20 years. I've heard her after-school stories of what we call in church, the "joys and sorrows" of an alternative high school teacher. I've attended alternative high school events over the years, and come to know other teachers. Mary and I usually talk policy and politics at breakfast, and often that discussion involves K-12 issues.

Does my having been a spouse of an alternative high school teacher qualify me to be one? Not on your life; of that I am unalterably confident. I wouldn't last a week.

Similarly, I don't think being the wife of a governor provides the experience of being a governor, and I don't think being the wife of a president is the equivalent of the experience of being a president.

Think about it. If she were still Senator Hillary Rodham, if she did not have the name recognition that comes from what she went through as Bill Clinton's wife, if she did not have his last name, would she now be one of the entrants, let alone one of the two finalists, in the Democratic Party's presidential primary process based on her "experience"? I don't think so.

What about her foreign policy "experience"? "I've traveled to 80 countries," she tells us. What she fails to tell us is what she did in those countries. Was she there as a U.S. Ambassador, embassy employee, military officer or even Peace Corps worker? As the United States' U.N. Ambassador? As a U.N. (or other international organization's) official? Was she engaged in negotiations of any kind -- whether on behalf of American corporations, improved trade relations, seeking the release of hostages, or to obtain treaties? So far as I know, the answer is "no" to all of the above. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these were, for the most part, "showing the flag," publicity and ceremonial visits.

President Kennedy once introduced himself as "the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to France." Notwithstanding that exalted billing, I don't think Jackie Kennedy would have suggested even that role qualified her to run for president.

I've traveled to something like 40 countries. Some have been holidays -- although even then I often would call on public officials or others related to my work. Other trips have involved working with foreign officials on official government business. Frankly, I would not begin to suggest that my 40 countries made me half as qualified to be president as Senator Clinton's 80 countries. I wouldn't even suggest it would qualify me to be an Assistant Secretary of State.

Has her travel been of some marginal benefit in contributing to her understanding other cultures and nations? I would assume so. That's one of the values of travel -- for anyone who's sufficiently humble and observant. I just think she's making far, far too much of it.

I would never say any of the three senators is "unqualified" to be president. I just don't think any of them -- especially Senator Clinton -- can make the case that they do have the experience and qualifications to be president while one of the others does not.

I think the following "Saturday Night Live" sketch from March 8, 2008, puts in perspective Senator Clinton's portrayal of the alleged contrast between her experience and that of Senator Obama. (If you get an "error" message in using the video below, use the link above.)

And see also, Matthew Yglesias, "Experience Gap," The Atlantic.com, March 11, 2008, 9:42 a.m., which reproduces a memorandum from Greg Craig, former director, State Department Policy Planning staff (e.g., "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed 'the Commander-in-Chief test' is simply not supported by her record" -- following which he details the supporting data.)

The video appears to be no longer available. However, here is a transcript of the text:

Episode 1526 | Season 33 | 03/08/2008

Cold Open: An Unfair and Deceptive Message from Hillary Clinton

It's 3 A.M. and the phone rings somewhere in our nation's capital. President Obama calls Hillary in desperate need of help. Iran has developed a nuclear device with the help of the axis of evil. They've lied to him, and now he's in a blind, unreasoning panic born from inexperience. What's Obama to do?

Hillary tells Obama to man up. Russia will back down or risk violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Hillary insists that the Secretary of State can explain, but Obama doubts that Secretary Sharpton can, admitting this wasn't his best appointment. Obama thanks Hillary and apologizes for calling every night, glossing over her request for payment if he's going to keep calling. He would trade all of his superficial charm and rock star appeal for an iota of Hillary's capabilities.

Hillary admits that what we've just witnessed is a dramatization, based on facts. Well, not facts, but what she calls specious campaign talking points. If you want a better future for our country, it's not too late. Call or write the offices of the Democratic National Committee. With enough pressure, we can convince party leaders that they've made a huge mistake. And one more thing... Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

EXTRA - MISSISSIPPI UPDATE - The Washington Post is reporting this morning [March 12, 7:00 a.m.] that, with 90% of Mississippi's precincts reporting, Senator Obama received 60% of the votes (221,874) and Senator Clinton received 38% (142,671). This translates into 17 delegates for Senator Obama (for a total of 1596) and 11 for Senator Clinton (bringing her total to 1484) -- a 112 delegate margin for Senator Obama.

The New York Times reports [March 12, 7:20 a.m.] that with 99% of the precincts reporting Barack Obama has 60.7% of the votes (253,441) and Hillary Rodham Clinton has 37.1% (154,852)-- and says the 33 pledged delegate allocation has yet to be determined. It calculates the elected delegate totals to be 1348 Obama to 1210 Clinton -- a 138 vote margin for Senator Obama -- while reporting the Associated Press' calculation to be 1385 to 1237, a 148-vote spread. With super delegates it's 1510 to 1403 (107 spread) from the Times and 1596 to 1484 (a 112 spread) from the AP.

EXTRA - WYOMING UPDATE (March 8, 2008, 8:41 p.m. CT): With 100% Precincts Reporting Obama has 61% of the Votes, Clinton 38%.

Wyoming Democratic Caucus

Candidate. . . . Votes. .%
Barack Obama. . .5,378. .61
Hillary Clinton. 3,312. .38
Other. . . . . . . .70. .1
Key: Red Checkmark Winner
Precincts: 100% | Updated: 9:41 PM ET | Source: AP [as reported on Washington Post Web site] Delegates at stake: 12; Obama 7, Clinton 5

# # #

Tonight's the Night

January 3, 2007, 4:00 p.m.; January 4, 2007, 6:30 a.m.; January 5, 2007, 4:40 p.m.

[Jan. 5] Presidential candidates' race update: Romney wins Wyoming (7 of first 10 delegates). Mead Gruver (AP), "Romney Wins Wyoming Caucuses," Washington Post, January 5, 2007, 5:04 p.m. (ET).

_______________
To borrow the punch line from a really bad (and irrelevant) joke . . .

"Tonight's the Night"
Today [Jan. 3] I awoke to a BBC radio report of the Iowa caucus process, along with a reporter's comment to me later in the day that there are journalists from 30-40 countries covering the political events in my little state of Iowa as they travel about in press busses.

Moreover, "today" began yesterday noon -- with the final countdown Iowa City appearances of Democratic candidates Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and this morning, Dodd (plus a couple we didn't attend).

Pictures from each of those four events, plus many more from throughout 2007, can be found on my Picasa Web site.

Elsewhere on this blog, linked from the lefthand column of this blog entry, as well as available from searches of the blog entries throughout 2007, deal with politics in general and the caucus process in particular.

My wife and I will be working this evening as Johnson County Democrats' co-chairs of one of Iowa's 1700-plus precincts: Iowa City 3. We're off now to set up the venue -- a ballroom at the University of Iowa students' Memorial Union.

Once those events are wrapped up, and I'm back home, I may add a bit of a report to this blog entry.

__________

Too late last night; here's the update.

Mary ran the meeting; 208 showed up (we were expecting 60-100). It was the same all across Iowa, roughly a doubling of the caucus turnout in 2004. Our precinct's 6 delegates split 3 for Obama, 2 for Richardson, 1 for Edwards. Clinton was not, as we say in caucus speak: "viable."

My own read of the statewide outcome -- like that of many commentators and the candidates themselves -- is that voters, at least in Iowa, were expressing a general sentiment more than a precisely analyzed and articulated preference for individual candidates (though there was a good measure of that as well) when they, literally, "stood" for their choice at the caucus. They're frustrated and hurting -- with Bush, with the Democrats failure to do anything meaningful about Bush and his war, with the perpetuation of corporate control of Washington constantly putting profits over people, with the bickering. For many caucus goers (I'm guessing) Obama and Huckabee simply represented the closest trees to take that lightning strike -- creditable alternatives to an unacceptable status quo. (Note that Edwards, who has been hammering a message consistent with this spirit, came in a good second.)

Clearly Clinton and Romney were the very big losers of the evening -- which is not to say, with their money, they can't make up some of that in the primaries to come.

I've added three photos to the Picasa photo site showing the orderly phase of the evening (the chair bringing us to order, and two presenters on behalf of candidates), and the size of the group in the IMU ballroom. The "caucus chaos" that followed would have been hard to capture in a still photo -- and virtually impossible given my other obligations at that time.

For some reason unexplained the Des Moines Register has removed its video of Senator Obama's Iowa Caucus Victory Speech of January 3rd -- said by many commentators to be one of the most impressive victory speeches of the last 50 years. Here it is from YouTube, so you can watch and judge for yourself:



If you never saw it, or would like a reminder, here are Part One and Part Two of his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.





# # #

Op Ed: Caucus Choices Analysis [Dec. 22]

December 22, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

Democrats who attend their precinct caucus the evening of January 3 will suffer the blessing of too many wonderful choices. Here's this morning's [Dec. 22] op ed with my suggested analysis for sorting through them to a choice. (And see also on that page the adjoining column by former Congressman Jim Leach, "We should look to Eisenhower, not Reagan, in 21st century.")

Qualities to keep in mind when picking a president

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen

December 22, 2007, p. 15A

__________

All the Democratic Party's presidential candidates would make good-to-excellent presidents. How to choose?

Here are some suggestions from an Iowa-born old Washington hand.

• Don't miss the caucus. Take a friend. New York's Boss Tweed said, "I don't care who does the electing, just so long as I do the nominating." This is your chance to do the nominating. Plus, it's fun.

• Don't rely on "positions" and rhetoric. A campaign is not a presidency. Even if meaningful and honestly spoken, political forces and conditions change.

• Forget "electability." Any Democratic Party nominee is electable in 2008. (Although Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's high negatives create some risk.) Consider their ability to govern.

• Forget the media's top three. Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are going to New Hampshire regardless. Use your chance to "vote twice." Support one of the others you want kept in the race. If they're not initially "viable" at your caucus you can switch.

Experience at everything

All have "experience" at something. But a president needs experience at everything. Who has the broadest, deepest range of experience?

An American president is policy wonk in chief as well as commander in chief. Federal personnel director as well as national cheerleader. They must maintain our economy while improving our foreign relations. Above all, they must have superior, large-institution administrative skills and experience.

When they negotiate and deal with other major institutions it gives them credibility as well as real understanding if they've worked within them: Congress, cabinet positions, municipal and state governments, international organizations, and negotiations with foreign leaders.

We don't have a school for presidents. There's no parliamentary system to provide the ultimate prime ministers both administrative and legislative experience.

Quality rankings

So here are the qualities I'm looking for -- followed by my opinion of who ranks highest.

• Experience administering large institutions (state or large city governments, corporations) -- Gov. Bill Richardson (governor; Secretary of Energy), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (mayor of Cleveland).

• A "people person" with charisma or down-home manner, sense of humor (including self-deprecation), or what Molly Ivins called "Elvis" -- Obama (charisma and "Elvis"), Richardson (down-home; humor).

• The understanding and credibility earned by working inside both Washington's executive and legislative branches -- Richardson (cabinet (Energy), Congress). (Legislative: Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson and Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd).

• A willingness to put forward courageous, "best policy" proposals, rather than "starting off backing up" --Kucinich (only one to organize and vote against the war, and propose universal single-payer health care rather than for-profit insurance).

• Experience working inside international organizations (e.g., U.N., World Bank) -- Richardson (UN ambassador).

• Understanding of the elements and process of citizen empowerment -- Obama (community organizer).

• An understanding of foreign policy (as distinguished from administering it) -- Biden, Dodd (plus, of course, Richardson).

• An ability to work with, but an independence from, special interest money and influence (the "Washington Establishment") -- My guess is that all have, can (and will have to) work with Washington's real power centers.

However, Clinton's strength in this department is her weakness. She and Bill could probably name all of their 4,000 presidential appointees in one evening without notes. But part of the reason for their millions from corporate lobbyists and PACs is the Washington Establishment's expectation of another pro-corporate, business-as-usual Clinton administration.

• Experience negotiating with foreign leaders -- Richardson (North Korea, Iraq, Sudan; U.N.; return of hostages); Biden and Dodd.

• Champion of the underdog -- Edwards, Kucinich.

You may have a different list of qualities and evaluation of candidates. But I hope this kind of approach may be helpful to you in a year when we are blessed with a very tough choice from among excellent candidates.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson served as maritime administrator, FCC commissioner and presidential adviser for a White House Conference during the terms of three presidents. He now teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains the blog, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.,/i>

# # #

Richardsons at JJ Dinner Nov. 10

November 13, 2007, 8:45 a.m.

As if there weren't enough pictures already from the Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner in Des Moines last Saturday evening, November 10, here are some more -- with primary emphasis on the pre-dinner gathering of Governor Bill Richardson's supporters, with the Governor and his wife Barbara, along with Senator Jovial Joe Biden's visit to those of us in the nosebleed section (the only candidate who reached those heights -- at least where I was sitting), now posted to my public Picasa site.

Also present, and pictured, were the leaders of Iowa STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa), who explained to the wall-to-wall crowd why they were endorsing Richardson for President, the Unser brothers of Indianapolis 500 championship fame (ditto), and one of the many captured Americans for whom Richardson negotiated release, John Early (ditto).

All in all, it was an event that fully rivaled the dinner that followed.

In addition, if you weren't there, or left before the night ran out, regardless of who you're thinking of supporting you really do need to watch Senator Obama's speech.

And, as always, the John Deeth Blog is the best source for a detailed report on the evening.

# # #

Bridges to Governance - Richardson - Wellmark Bullying

August 3, 2007, 1:30 p.m.

Managing Infrastructure

The collapsing Minneapolis bridge is a sad tragedy, and at least from some reports was an accident that could have been neither accurately predicted nor prevented.

Governor Culver responded by ordering an inspection of Iowa's bridges. William Petroski, "Culver assigns DOT to report on bridge safety; Iowa officials will speak with Minnesota engineers on why the major structure collapsed," Des Moines Register, August 3, 2007; Paula Lavigne, Lee Rood and Tom Barton, "10 Iowa I-80 bridges may need replacing," Des Moines Register, August 3, 2007.

We look to our officials to "do something" following such disasters, and sending out folks to look at bridges is certainly better than just appointing another task force. Moreover, as a "political" reaction -- in the best sense of "political" -- there's no harm in an official using the media to communicate to constituents that he's on top of things. Making citizens "feel better" is a useful thing for officials to do.

But the phenomenon of "locking the barn door after the horse is stolen" is a human foible that has not disappeared with horses and barn doors. There are techniques for remedying it, and our failure to use them is a significant tragedy in its own right.

There was another example in this morning's Register: "Local emergency management officials in Polk County used the explosion Wednesday to highlight the need for hazardous materials training involving ethanol." Tom Barton, "Electricity sparked blast, officials say;Gasoline was being loaded into a tanker when the explosion occurred," Des Moines Register, August 2, 2007. Why does it take an explosion to "highlight the need" for such training? Shouldn't that be obvious even before such explosions?

Earlier, the reaction of Governor Culver, and the Board of Regents, to the Virginia Tech shootings was to launch a study of security on our campuses; their reaction to the Wellmark naming controversy mess is a review (and creation) of policies on naming university colleges and buildings.

Recently, there was an explosion in downtown Manhattan from a corroded, underground steam pipe. The response was that, "Hey, maybe we ought to be checking out those steam pipes."

I've written at length here about governance models in general, and the Board of Regents need for one in particular. As but one example see, Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance,'" in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007. (Similar considerations apply, with modest modifications, to single-headed units -- such as the Governor's office.)

What John Carver calls "ends policies" and most would call "measurable goals" are distinguished from the means to be used by administrators for achieving those "ends" -- the achievement of which is also the administrator's "job description." The board sets the goals, and the administrator's job is to design and execute the means for reaching them. Accomplishment of mileposts along the administrator's (e.g., "CEO's") timelines can then be reported to the board (or governor) with a "management information reporting system" -- without the board's involvement in micromanaging of the details of the administrator's "means."

In fairness, a part of the responsibility for the failure of government, corporations and other institutions to do this job in a rational and effective way falls on the media. "If it bleeds it leads" is TV's motto. "Infrastructure" is neither very visual or very sexy. Most Iowans would probably rather use a Webcam to watch corn growing than watch a TV news report of inspectors looking at bridges. "A bridge collapsed and killed people? Now that's something we have to get on the evening news." And, once it receives media focus officials have to respond -- with an investigation, task force, a fly-over inspection, or promises of how things are going to change.

But the fact is that so many of these disasters are predictable -- not necessarily precisely what's going to go wrong and when, but that something will. Hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. Deteriorating (and exploding) underground pipelines for natural gas, gasoline -- and steam. Toxic waste dumps and hazardous chemical spills at work sites. Aging bridges. Fire hazards and improperly functioning sprinkler systems and smoke detectors. Inadequately maintained railroad tracks. Outbreaks of disease -- possibly as the result of a contaminated food supply. (And I won't even start down the list of potential "terrorist" attacks.)

Management by media coverage of disasters hasn't worked for us very well. Governance models aren't, alone, enough to solve all our problems. But they sure would be a lot better than what we're doing now with our after-the-fact barn-door-locking programs.

Governor Bill Richardson

I attended another Richardson event last evening (where I had the honor of introducing him to a packed Richey Auditorium in the IMU). It was vintage Richardson, and the crowd stayed with him though it all.

This was the second time I've seen him create a collection of questions at the end of the evening -- and then address them all. A staffer says, "Just one more, Governor." And then he says something to the effect of, "Well, I'll just respond once, but let's see if we can't get the questions from these folks with their hands up." Whereupon a staffer makes a list of a dozen or more additional questions which he then puts to the Governor in rapid-fire order.

The guy has had such a range of responsibilities and experiences over the past 35 years (e.g., House Intelligence Committee as Congressman; multiple successful hostage negotiations; UN Ambassador; Secretary of Energy; education, health care and environmental accomplishments as New Mexico's governor; etc., etc.) that these final Q&A sessions turn into a real tour de force display of his wide-ranging knowledge, experience, analysis, policy orientation and proposals. It's very impressive.

Afterwards we had a chance to visit with him informally for an hour or so. "What you see is what you get," on stage and off. He's as friendly, informal, funny, relaxed, considerate of others, and intellectually stimulating as your favorite uncle. (Actually, depending on who your favorite uncle is, that may not be doing Richardson justice -- but you get the idea. He's fun to be with.)

Add to that, as I commented in the introduction, that he's visited more Iowa counties in the last three weeks (five more major stops today) than Senator Grassley visits in a year, and no wonder he's picking up those poll percentages that Clinton and Obama have been losing.

Interested in more? See http://www.RichardsonForPresident.com.

Wellmark the Bully

This is not, necessarily, a critical story about Wellmark -- on the merits. The company has involved itself in decisions about "how many hospitals does it take to screw over the public"?

So, in a way, we should be grateful it cares about controlling costs -- costs that ultimately get passed along to us in the form of higher hospital bills and insurance premiums.

But the story is just one more example of what's wrong with providing a service that should be everyone's moral right -- namely, health care -- as yet one more product distributed by profit-maximizing, benefit-cutting private businesses called "hospitals" and "insurance companies."

If you're interested, read Tony Leys, "Insurer questions new hospital plan; Wellmark says Iowa Health's proposal is not economical," Des Moines Register, August 3, 2007.

# # #

UI Held Hostage Day 498 - Barbara Richardson & Friend

June 3, 2007, 8:15 a.m., 12:30 p.m.

Governor Bill Richardson and the Natural Superiority of Women
It's not the data, it's just my sense, that men have a greater propensity to arrogance than women. At least I've not often seen a lot of women getting drunk and staggering down the street shouting, "We're Number One! We're Number One!" Not only do we behave as if we are superior to all the other animals, men have for centuries deluded themselves into believing they are superior to women as well.

Both arrogant assumptions are wrong.

The natural superiority of squirrels.I purchased another bird feeder the day before yesterday. One of my favorites has once again come under squirrel attack. It sits on a pole, cannot be assaulted from below, and is located sufficiently far from any tree limbs that for a year or so it was free from attack. We've yet to figure out how a squirrel can get into it, but a new squirrel in our neighborhood has now been spotted in it a couple of times.

[Cartoon credit ("Outwit squirrels getting to bird feeders"): Wiley Miller, "Non Sequitur," May 20, 2015.]

The conclusions one must draw from the decades-long conflict between squirrels on the one hand, and those of us who like to feed wild birds on the other, are not flattering to our species. With our self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, all the resources of our scientific and engineering geniuses, our industrial and military power and might, "Yankee ingenuity," and a range of materials and tools unknown to prior generations, the results of our war on squirrels really does make our prospects for victory in Iraq look like a "slam dunk" by comparison.

Much as we may squirm to avoid admitting it, an honest evaluation of the data compels the conclusion that squirrels do, in fact, have a superior intelligence to humans. They also have more patience and determination. More willingness to work at, and stick with, problem solving. More commitment to scientific experimentation. And, not incidentally, an athletic prowess -- not to mention courage -- that puts our Olympic athletes to shame by comparison.

As the clerk put it to me with commendable candor when I asked about a squirrel-proof bird feeder, "Look, mister, there ain't no squirrel-proof bird feeders. There are just squirrel-resistant bird feeders."

So I now have a squirrel-resistant bird feeder. And at least for the first 24 hours I haven't seen any evidence that squirrels have already figured it out. But I see them looking at it, and drawing diagrams in the dirt underneath it, and I while I don't know what they're thinking I do know what they're thinking about.

The natural superiority of women. While I have always had great respect for the major contributions of the women I have known -- contributions to our society in general as well as our families -- it was only about 15 years ago that I came to an insight I've characterized as "the natural superiority of women."

Not only has this insight helped me to understand what's going on in the world around me, it has also been a profound stress reducer. No longer am I responsible for solving all the world's problems. No longer do I have to make all the big decisions. I just leave it to the women, secure in the confidence they'll probably do a better job of it than I would anyway.

So what I did at Governor Bill Richardson's reception prior to the five candidates' speeches to Iowa's Democrats in Cedar Rapids last evening will not surprise you. After visiting with the Governor briefly, and taking some of the pictures I'll link to momentarily, I left him to the crowds hanging on his every word and spent much of my time visiting with his wife, Barbara.

I commented that it has often been my experience that the wives of presidents, or presidential candidates, are individuals of great qualities and strengths which often includes a superiority to their husbands. Given the challenges of being the spouse of an office holder or candidate it requires a superior person.

In Barbara Richardson's case she's been a leader in significant accomplishments with regard to -- among a great many other things -- domestic violence projects, an immunization program that produced remarkable improvements in a state (New Mexico) that had been last in the nation, and a successful literacy program (also a challenge in New Mexico). (It's not irrelevant to note that she mentioned none of this to me; I've picked it up elsewhere.)

Barbara Flavin Richardson graduated magna cum laude from Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts, and married her high school classmate, Bill Richardson, in 1972. They've held that marriage together for 35 years -- itself a significant accomplishment given the lives they've both led.

In fact, her college magazine reported in 2005,

Just before Bill Richardson was sworn in as governor in 2003, a reporter asked her about media reports speculating that the governor would run for president in 2008.

"I'll tell you what I tell him," she said. "'That's another life and another wife.' Honest to God. Not my bag. It's just not something that I even want to contemplate."

Jayne M. Iafrate, "The Power of One," Wheaton Quarterly, Winter 2005.

(That was essentially what my first wife, now deceased, told me when I was asked to be a third party candidate for president, and later became a candidate in a congressional primary. But in our case, by the time of the congressional primary we were divorced and, unlike Barbara, she was not campaigning with me. Although in fairness I should note that, notwithstanding her view of the matter and the divorce, she did offer to come to Iowa to campaign for me if the divorce ever became an issue. It did not.)

No politician's wife can be expected to have enthusiasm for any campaign, let alone a presidential campaign. But, given that, Barbara Richardson has clearly decided not only to "contemplate" her husband's race, she is still married to him and participating in the campaign.

She's bright, charming, down-to-earth, relaxed, with an infectious smile and sense of humor -- a real asset to Bill Richardson, as governor, as a presidential candidate, or as America's First Lady.

(If you're interested in more, besides the Wheaton Quarterly story, linked above, you might want to look at her New Mexico First Lady Web page, her page on the Governor's presidential campaign site, or her Wikipedia entry.)

Oh, yeah, and that guy she was with is not too shabby either. I think past experience counts -- and that, while there are many senators whom I admire, the U.S. Senate doesn't provide much of a test of one's abilities as a responsible administrator of a large enterprise. Being a governor is about as close as we get. (On the other hand, one should note that George Bush senior had a resume approaching that of Bill Richardson, and George Bush junior had experience as governor of a larger state than New Mexico. So it's not a rule with no exceptions.)

Nor are Governor Richardson's resume entries -- which seemingly go on forever -- all the result of a series of short term hop-skip-and-jumps from one job to another. He served in the U.S. Congress for 14 years, and as New Mexico's governor since 2003 -- to which he was re-elected with an unprecedented 60+ percent. (I can't find the exact percentage at the moment.) There are dozens of other jobs and experiences that he's had that are relevant to the presidency. I don't have time or space to relate all of them here, nor is there a need to. If you're seriously evaluating the field of candidates you ought to read them for yourself. There's no shortage of material about him on the Internet, but you can always start with his Wikipedia entry and his campaign Web page, "Bill Richardson for President."

Governor Richardson's moving up.

More and more Iowans are coming to realize (in part, as a result of his commercials) that in terms of relevant experience he is head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.

After starting late compared to the three poll leaders (in Iowa) Edwards, Obama and Clinton, his first quarter fund raising put him at fourth (or fifth) largest nationally, and he's already moved from what he characterizes with a smile as "within the margin of error" to a solid 10% in the Iowa Poll. Jonathan Roos, "Democrats Prefer Edwards in New Poll," Des Moines Register, May 19, 2007.

His humorous, somewhat self-deprecating TV commercials have been characterized by George Stephanopoulos (and most Iowans I know) as the best so far this year (a judgment shared by those present last evening).

David Broder, dean of the political pack, has written, "The liveliest pair of candidates in the large fields of Democratic and Republican long shots, Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee, are also -- not coincidentally -- the likeliest to break through into the top ranks of their parties if anyone ever does." David S. Broder, "Two Long Shots Liven Up a Race," The Washington Post, May 24, 2007, Page A31.

A lot can happen between June 2007 and January 2008 (when the Iowa caucuses take place) -- just ask the Republican candidates now looking at the entry of Fred Thompson. And the higher Richardson rises in the polls the greater will be the desire of the media, and his opponents, to find any scrap of scandal they can uncover.

Candidates will go up and down in the polls. Anyone can stumble with an answer to a reporter's question, or in one of the debates. No one can predict what may be dragged up from out of these candidates' pasts that may radically change their standing -- whether legitimately or not. Nor can we predict the news (such as this morning's report of the foiled plot to blow up the JFK Airport and a goodly portion of New York along with it), and how it, and the candidates' response to it, will affect them. Candidates may drop out. Others may enter.

But, for now, Barbara Richardson and her tag-along are going to be worth keeping an eye on.

Oh, and here are the pictures from last evening.

UICCU and "Optiva"
The UICCU-Optiva story is essentially behind us. There may be occasional additions "for the record," but for the most part the last major entry, with links to the prior material from October 2006 through March 2007, is "UICCU and 'Optiva'" in Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 406 - March 3 - Optiva," March 3, 2007. Since then there have been two major additions: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Letter to UICCU Board" in "UI Held Hostage Day 423 - March 20 - UICCU," March 20, 2007, and "'Open Letter': Confirmation from World Council of Credit Unions" in "UI Held Hostage Day 424 - March 21 UICCU," March 21, 2007.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

These blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each contains links to the full text of virtually all known media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #
Media Stories and Commentary
See above.
_______________
Technorati tags: football, athletics, academics, high school, college, University of Iowa, education, K-12, leadership, university president, Michael Gartner, Iowa Board of Regents, UI president search, Nicholas Johnson, FromDC2Iowa