Why Obama is winning

Obama has made a few strategic decisions in this campaign that have paid off exceptionally well. The Boston Globe examines one of them - the decision to concentrate resources on states with smaller populations, particularly Idaho and Kansas. The Obama campaign realized early on that if they could win those states by large margins, they could accumulate quite a few delegates. That's exactly what happened, and it is why Obama is ahead today. For example, he won 80% of the vote in Idaho. What's more important, he did it relatively cheaply. My guess is that the entire cost of his Idaho campaign was probably the equivalent of a week of advertising in New York.

Which highlights for me a key difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama developed a great strategy early on, and then executed it extremely well. Clinton, on the other hand, seriously underestimated her opponent, and then had no backup plan. Which, if you think about it, is why we are in trouble in Iraq.

I keep hearing that Clinton is "tough." Which she is. But she's tough in the sense that Tony Soprano is tough - she's willing to go negative, sling mud, and fight back against people who suggest that she drop out. Very tough.

But I don't want that kind of tough in my president. We've had a president for seven years now who fits that definition of "tough." That's the macho definition of "tough." But I would much rather have an intelligent version of "tough."

For example, consider Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Both of them are undoubtedly "tough" businessmen. Bill Gates and Microsoft are known for playing hardball. Microsoft controls the market for several key categories of PC software, like the operating system and office productivity. That gives them incredible leverage. So they can play hardball by virtue of their dominant position. That makes it easy for them to be tough.

But when Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft at the age of 20 or whatever, he didn't control 95% of the world's desktops. He and Paul Allen had to develop a solid strategy and consistently execute it well, and execute it better than their myriad competitors. That's very difficult to do. It's tough. And it has made them tough.

Or look at Steve Jobs. Macs still only command about 4-5% of the market for PC's, if that. Steve Jobs does not have anything approaching the leverage that Bill Gates does. But he's just as tough. He's incredibly tenacious. And he drives people to perform extremely well. He inspires phenomenal loyalty from his customers. He develops great strategies, and them executes them incredibly well. That's the kind of "tough" that I want in a leader.

I don't want Tony Soprano for president. I want Gandhi. Gandhi was a quiet, gentle man with strong principles and a clear vision. Who brought down an empire. That's the kind of "tough" that I want in a president.

I don't want "testicular fortitude." I want eloquence. I don't want Lyndon Johnson, I want Martin Luther King. When Johnson died, he was mostly alone, with few friends. When King died, the world mourned.

I want a tough person to be president. But by tough, I mean that I want someone who is calm in a crisis, who does not panic when things get rough, who is not afraid when suddenly the world is chaotic or violent. Growing up, I thot that being tough meant being macho and violent, and I decided that wasn't for me. I was much too sensitive. But eventually I figured out that being sensitive and compassionate does not mean being a wimp, that being tough means making hard decisions and sticking with them, and being able to listen and discuss things when people around you are screaming and yelling.

I don't want a president who knows how to throw a punch. I want a president who figures out a way to avoid having to throw a punch at all.