We all grew up with a romanticized vision of what a
president should be. And to a large extent, that vision is what we’re still
trying to vote for. Whether the president you imagined was more strong and
resolute in the face of danger or a trailblazing visionary, we all seek a
personality that makes us feel secure.

Does that mean we’re bad at voting? In conversations with
voters from around the state, it?s clear very few have chosen based on policy
positions. Democrats still reeling from buyer’s remorse over John Kerry know
that approach matters, and personality counts. Stodgy New England liberals just
aren’t very good at national campaigns.

Successful campaigns need a justification for existence.
John Kerry’s was that he could win; that got him close, but it wasn’t good
enough. George W. Bush’s in 2000 was that business found God, and they can work
together. Hillary Clinton’s was that she is in the race with the intention of
winning it. It?s hard to fight that against a broad ideal ? in this case hope
for an era of political reconciliation.

Building a quality brand is nearly everything in modern
politics, both in winning elections and passing legislation. Ms. Clinton’s brand
is sober, unshakably tough policy wonk. But her campaign thus far hasn’t lived
up to the brand it has built through the media. The organization has been prone
to strategic error, been run and funded by longtime loyalists and didn’t even
think to fully staff post-Super Tuesday states. The shifting national polls
give evidence that Americans are recoiling at the thought of an administration that
is constantly drawn off-message by outside influences and stubbornly refuses to
plan for the improbable.

The Clinton campaign in recent weeks has sought to deny the
obvious truth: Campaign style can reveal the future conduct of an administration.
We saw Mr. Bush’s 2000 under-the-radar campaign work to cast doubt on Sen. John
McCain’s patriotism in South Carolina and organize a rent-a-mob to stop
Miami-Dade County from recounting ballots. The Bush-Rove machine believed
political wins were worth any price.

Now we see the Clinton campaign blame the media for all of
their troubles and offer endless (not to mention whiny) excuses for all the
races they’ve lost. A false sense of entitlement radiates from Ms. Clinton’s campaign,
with the clear implication that she deserves the nomination, and any challenges
to her rightful office amount to theft by the press or institutional bias.

That’s why Ms. Clinton writes off all caucuses as
undemocratic after she loses, and Bill shrugs off a lopsided South Carolina
loss because it?s full of black people who probably voted for Jesse Jackson.
Now in the waning moments of the race for Wisconsin, Ms. Clinton has finally
shown up, claiming Mr. Obama is neglecting our state by refusing to agree to a
21st debate. All the while, Mr. Obama and his chief surrogates have
methodically campaigned in every region.

Further, the Clinton campaign continues to advance the
bizarre argument that Michigan’s delegates merit full voting rights at the nomination
convention, even though she ran unopposed. Indeed, they are wrenching arms to
change the rules they signed on to before the campaign because their back is
against the wall. Rather than grow resolute under pressure, her organization is
scrambling for a legal out.

In a final moment of desperation, her surrogates are
accusing Mr. Obama of plagiarizing part of a speech by Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick. The charge has been negated by the absence of the phrase in his
prepared remarks and by Mr. Patrick’s obvious pride over supplying his good
friend with a concise argument to counter the harebrained ?words don’t matter?
attack strategy. The Clinton campaign has certainly fought hard, but not smart.

The quality of a campaign apparatus does matter. Each
senator has organized a specialized company to promote his or her ideas to the
American people and, like in a national administration, is responsible for its
progress. All excuses and spin aside, Ms. Clinton’s company has proven utterly
incapable of delivering on its mandates, and Mr. Obama’s has outperformed most
any metric.

If you can’t find any substantive policy differences worth
voting for one over the other, consider the organization each has run over the
past year. One has been sober and focused, the other brash and unpredictable.
Which of these approaches would achieve more in the White House?

Bassey Etim ([email protected])
is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.