"You’ve got to run this government, you can’t leave it to others."
-Hillary Clinton

"I’m not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision of 'here's where the bureaucracy needs to go.'"
-Barak Obama

Quotes from CNN January 16th 2008 link

With the Indiana primary fast approaching and the shocking but beautiful reality that our fine state will actually matter for the first time in my life, I have, like many others, been following this election obsessively. Just to be clear, I am an Obama supporter and have been for some time, but how I arrived at that decision has as much to do with my business experiences and management philosophies as with my political leanings. So I wanted to take a little time exploring the differences between Obama and Clinton from my perspective as a business
owner.

You learn a lot about what kind of President a candidate will be by watching how they execute their campaign. We have seen this with both Clinton and Obama.

Obama's campaign has been an excellent case study of viral marketing, starting with some good buzz and growing exponentially to eventually overtake the heir apparent. It has been encouraging to watch how his campaign has used the Web to grow their campaign, bring new voices to the table and possibly create a new way of having public discourse if he is elected. It's exciting to think of how he could use some of the same online tools from his campaign in a broader capacity as the president.

Obama has drawn this larger base (over a million donors) by giving up some control and trusting others with his message. By creating an atmosphere where all participants feel like they own his message, he is able to create a much larger base of support. If you listen to speeches by Obama and Clinton you will notice that Obama often uses "we" and Clinton often uses "I". This is a reflection of their different management approaches. Obama sees himself as a conduit for a movement and Clinton sees herself as the general leading the troops to battle.

Obama is a surfer and Clinton is a rock climber.

Clinton's campaign, and career, is a case study of how to build and then capitalize on political leverage. Her approach has more in common with how the Mafia operates, you scratch my back and I scratch yours, than with any other known form of organization. It is amusing to watch the Clinton camp melt down with each "defector" that jumps the fence for Obama. You half expect them to put a "hit" out on these "traitors".

On some level the differences in approach reflect a generational gap, as the media has done well in pointing out ad infinitum. But at the core of this generational gap I think the true distinction is how we view leadership and value our own input as participants. This is basically the difference between thinking like an entrepreneur vs an employee.

Our parents and grandparents were raised with the belief that they would work for one company for a majority of their adult life. The employer was like a god which bestowed all the good things of life- money, housing, cars, etc. But the current generation is much more transient, expecting to have 5-10 careers in the same span. In a sense the next generations are a nation of sub-contractors and freelancers. They have no real loyalty to companies but they do have loyalty to ideas.

Obama's success has been appealing to this new generation of freelancers whose time is quickly approaching. Clinton's success has been enabled by the fact that there is still an aging but very large generation that sees in her what they consider good leadership qualities- strong, decisive and demanding, a fighter seeking victories.

But there is rarely such a thing as win-lose in politics, business or even life. Really a win-lose is a lose-lose. It's hard to see this all the time but if you take the long view it becomes clearer. A loser often becomes an enemy which means you have lost a potential partner. The sacrifice might not be apparent at first but eventually it will come back to haunt when that enemy has a position of leverage over you. Suddenly that previous "win" no longer feels so sweet when the vanquished is extracting their revenge. The only way to break this chain reaction is to seek a shared victory.

I believe Obama is correct in seeking to build a new majority in order to achieve real results on a multitude of issues where there is general consensus among the public (health care, the war, the environment, energy, diplomacy).

Clinton has proven she will fall on her sword or mortally wound her opponent rather than make needed compromises which could net a greater good. We are seeing this now as she throws the "kitchen sink" at Obama in order to win. This is remarkably selfish and a loss for all, especially the people that want and probably deserve better from their candidate.

So it will be important for the "winner" of this primary to quickly embrace the "loser" in order to mutually claim the larger, shared victory of a unified vision to take this country forward.

Here's to hoping that enough people will be looking forward and not back on May 6th.

Regardless, get out there and vote!

Additional Thoughts and links:

It's interesting to note that Microsoft employees have favored Clinton whereas Google has favored Obama- link.

It could be argued that Microsoft's, until very recent, CEO Bill Gates, has a very hands on, micro-manage approach to business whereas Google adheres to modern business theories in giving up centralized control to allow the growth and development of all their employees. I wonder what the demographics are for these two companies...?

Also, I found this article of interest too in doing research

The Management Philosophy of Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster