It has been obvious for some time that Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is badly run compared with that of Barack Obama.

Leaving politics aside, it simply seems like a poor managerial effort. The fact that she has had fund-raising problems, did not grasp that the campaign would continue beyond Super Tuesday, and has not been able to organise effectively on the ground are all signs of a fundamental lack of competence.

The reality is that US election campaigns have to be run as businesses because they are so big, complex and expensive. Barack Obama has been raising funds at a rate of more than $30m per month recently. The campaign has already been going for a year and will last until November. That adds up to a lot of money.

Ed Luce’s piece on the topic in the FT this morning raises the interesting point that Mrs Clinton’s campaign has been run like an old-fashioned command-and-control business while Mr Obama has learned lessons from Silicon Valley.

For example, Mr Obama has tapped into a wide network of financial support through his website, and has encouraged local autonomy among his enthusiasts, while Mrs Clinton relied until recently on squeezing big donors for contributions.

If anything, her big-business approach to the campaign appears to be becoming more reinforced. Her latest slogan is “Solutions for America”, which makes her sound like a management consultant or IBM rather than a politician.

All in all, it has been a bad performance for someone who has run on the premise that she is managerially competent and will be “ready on day one” to be president.

February 21st, 2008 in Management | Permalink