If you were playing a drinking game while watching the Democratic National Convention this week and had to take a swig of alcohol every time a speaker uttered the word “change,” you would get plastered each night. Your hangover would last until well into the Republican National Convention next week.

Democrats are promising the most change in health care. In her rousing speech on Tuesday, August 26, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, assuaged supporters disappointed that she didn’t win the presidential nomination by promising them that Sen. Barack Obama, the soon-to-be Democratic standard-bearer, would usher in universal health care if he is elected president.

One expert in Washington cautions against such optimism. Paul Hewitt, executive director of Americans for Generational Equity, a group that promotes entitlement reform, says Obama would likely get hamstrung by Democratic majorities in Congress.

They will prevent him from making the compromises necessary to enact legislation that will undoubtedly require a lot of complex negotiations. In the same way that it took a conservative president—Richard Nixon—to open relations with China in the early 1970s, it could take a conservative president today—John McCain—to make headway on an intractable domestic issue.

“Our best hope for health reform is McCain,” Hewitt says. “A Democratic Congress is going to tie Obama’s hands. If you’re going to broker the deal, you are going to get a lot of your partisans mad.”

McCain has the advantage in that sense. The conservative Republican base is perpetually upset with him because he has made a career of compromising with Democrats on major legislation. If he wins the presidency, he’s less beholden to conservatives than ever.

McCain could cobble together a majority in favor of health care reform by combining at least one-third of the GOP congressional caucus with enough Democrats to get over the top, Hewitt says.

I took advantage of the quiet in Washington this week to meet Paul for lunch. He is a novel thinker and straight shooter, a combination that is sometimes difficult to find in Washington.

Full disclosure: Paul is a former colleague of mine. He headed the Global Aging Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies when I was the think tank’s director of communications.

Entitlement reform will define the next president’s term, Hewitt says. The favorable demographic trends—e.g., more U.S. workers than retirees—that allowed political parties to squabble mindlessly over health care and Social Security for the last 25 years have dissipated. Copping out by cutting taxes while increasing entitlement spending was possible in the past.

With baby boomers potentially retiring in droves, hard choices now face President Obama or President McCain. Currently, health care spending accounts for 17 percent of U.S. economic output. The health care bite is set to grow to 30 percent of GDP by 2030.

Bringing down those numbers, Hewitt says, can’t be done by a policy that is being embraced by Obama—raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

“In order to solve the problem, we’re going to have to create new wealth,” Hewitt says. “The only way you can create new wealth is by not beggaring the people who make it. You cannot means-test your way or progressively tax your way to a solution. You’re going to have to go after the households getting benefits or their kids.”

He also recommends raising the eligibility age for entitlements. He also backs reducing the amount of money paid to doctors and eliminating their incentive to run more tests to increase revenue.

If raising taxes becomes central to health care reform, Hewitt says that could eventually undermine support for Obama from one of his strongest constituencies—young people in college or who have recently graduated.

Earlier this summer, Hewitt hosted a Capitol Hill summit on entitlement reform featuring about 100 young leaders.

“When you present them with the facts, they make some pretty tough calls,” Hewitt says. “Obama is going to be confronted by a group, if they focus on [entitlement reform], that is going to set themselves in opposition to a core Democratic strategy for the last 30 years, which is pandering to senior citizens.”

The supremely confident, aggressive and impatient Generation Y could blanch at the soaring costs of caring for geriatric baby boomers. “They’re going to resist having the benefits of their college education taxed away,” Hewitt says.

Either Obama or McCain is going to inherit a tough job.

One of the most disheartening aspects of politics today is the way that many officeholders (or aspirants for office) in both parties have demonized immigration—and by extension globalization.

There’s a strong bipartisan trend toward “securing the borders first.” The problem is that the conversation is not getting too far beyond that notion.

Yes, the United States is a nation based on the rule of law. We have to uphold our statutes, especially as they apply to citizenship. But rhetoric on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail makes it sound as if immigrants enervate our country rather than strengthen it.

During the past two weeks, the Olympics have shown why we should take deep pride in our country’s history of welcoming people from all over the world and making them part of the American fabric.

Like many of you, I have been captivated by the performances of Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin in women’s gymnastics. But the indelible Olympic moment for me was not one of Johnson’s powerful moves on the balance beam or her winsome good sportsmanship as she interacted with her opponents.

What stood out was the interview she conducted with Bob Costas on NBC after she captured the gold medal in the balance beam competition. She mentioned that she had to fight off an upset stomach and headache before the beam event, which was her last chance to grab the gold. She was exhausted from pushing herself to the limit up to that point.

Johnson credited her coach, Liang Chow, for helping her through the ordeal and inspiring her to give a championship effort. Liang was sitting next to Johnson on the couch in the TV studio. But at the moment, he was literally right at home. He grew up in Beijing.

Liang and Johnson met in West Des Moines, Iowa, when Johnson walked into his gymnastics club as a 6-year-old. Liang nurtured her talent and has helped Johnson become one of the best gymnasts in the world.

But one of the few places in the world where such an encounter could occur is in the United States. We are the country that uniquely welcomes people to come here and excel in their chosen field.

The U.S. gymnastics workforce has benefited greatly from our country’s open arms. Seated at the end of the couch during Johnson’s interview was Bela Karolyi, the former U.S. coach who guided Mary Lou Retton to her outstanding Olympic achievements in 1984.

Before coming to America and taking Retton to the top of the Olympic world, Karolyi coached the first “rock star” of women’s gymnastics—Nadia Comaneci, a gold medalist in 1976. Karolyi and Comaneci are both Romanian.

Karolyi defected to the United States in 1981. Now his wife, Martha, is the coordinator of USA Gymnastics. There was something deeply moving about Karolyi, in his thick Eastern European accent, extolling the virtues of U.S. gymnastics during the NBC interview.

It was a striking tableau—the humble Midwestern girl with the radiant smile, her low-key Chinese coach, and the boisterous Karolyi, who sounded like a Cold War throwback but was voicing strongly pro-American sentiments.

Later in the week, we were treated to another form of globalization, this time more subtle from the U.S. standpoint. In men’s track and field, several runners from foreign countries were attending college in the United States. After the Olympics, they would return to campus to run for their schools.

Even though they won gold, silver and bronze for their home countries, they have strong American ties thanks to studying here. Wherever they go next, they will take a little bit of the United States with them.

This is how the United States maintains its competitiveness. It adopts the best practices of the rest of the world and learns what others have to teach us. We also export the best of ourselves to the rest of the world, strengthening our influence.

In the end, we are stronger because of our global engagement. When it comes to the Olympics—and to business—it often means we defeat the rest of the world.

One of the most disheartening aspects of politics today is the way that many officeholders (or aspirants for office) in both parties have demonized immigration—and by extension globalization.

There’s a strong bipartisan trend toward “securing the borders first.” The problem is that the conversation is not getting too far beyond that notion.

Yes, the United States is a nation based on the rule of law. We have to uphold our statutes, especially as they apply to citizenship. But rhetoric on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail makes it sound as if immigrants enervate our country rather than strengthen it.

During the past two weeks, the Olympics have shown why we should take deep pride in our country’s history of welcoming people from all over the world and making them part of the American fabric.

Like many of you, I have been captivated by the performances of Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin in women’s gymnastics. But the indelible Olympic moment for me was not one of Johnson’s powerful moves on the balance beam or her winsome good sportsmanship as she interacted with her opponents.

What stood out was the interview she conducted with Bob Costas on NBC after she captured the gold medal in the balance beam competition. She mentioned that she had to fight off an upset stomach and headache before the beam event, which was her last chance to grab the gold. She was exhausted from pushing herself to the limit up to that point.

Johnson credited her coach, Liang Chow, for helping her through the ordeal and inspiring her to give a championship effort. Liang was sitting next to Johnson on the couch in the TV studio. But at the moment, he was literally right at home. He grew up in Beijing.

Liang and Johnson met in West Des Moines, Iowa, when Johnson walked into his gymnastics club as a 6-year-old. Liang nurtured her talent and has helped Johnson become one of the best gymnasts in the world.

But one of the few places in the world where such an encounter could occur is in the United States. We are the country that uniquely welcomes people to come here and excel in their chosen field.

The U.S. gymnastics workforce has benefited greatly from our country’s open arms. Seated at the end of the couch during Johnson’s interview was Bela Karolyi, the former U.S. coach who guided Mary Lou Retton to her outstanding Olympic achievements in 1984.

Before coming to America and taking Retton to the top of the Olympic world, Karolyi coached the first “rock star” of women’s gymnastics—Nadia Comaneci, a gold medalist in 1976. Karolyi and Comaneci are both Romanian.

Karolyi defected to the United States in 1981. Now his wife, Martha, is the coordinator of USA Gymnastics. There was something deeply moving about Karolyi, in his thick Eastern European accent, extolling the virtues of U.S. gymnastics during the NBC interview.

It was a striking tableau—the humble Midwestern girl with the radiant smile, her low-key Chinese coach, and the boisterous Karolyi, who sounded like a Cold War throwback but was voicing strongly pro-American sentiments.

Later in the week, we were treated to another form of globalization, this time more subtle from the U.S. standpoint. In men’s track and field, several runners from foreign countries were attending college in the United States. After the Olympics, they would return to campus to run for their schools.

Even though they won gold, silver and bronze for their home countries, they have strong American ties thanks to studying here. Wherever they go next, they will take a little bit of the United States with them.

This is how the United States maintains its competitiveness. It adopts the best practices of the rest of the world and learns what others have to teach us. We also export the best of ourselves to the rest of the world, strengthening our influence.

In the end, we are stronger because of our global engagement. When it comes to the Olympics—and to business—it often means we defeat the rest of the world.

As I said in my previous posting, there’s a certain art to politics that corporate chief executives may not be able to master.

Building rapport with voters doesn’t necessarily come naturally to those who are used to ruling their own universe without taking much direction from the board or shareholders. That’s why a spot on a national ticket isn’t the best entry-level position for a CEO crossing over to public service.

On the other hand, there aren’t many politicians who would do well at the helm of a corporation. Management ability is usually not a gift that senators, members of Congress, or presidents possess. They may have leadership skills, but that’s distinct from operational competency.

Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote about the same topic July 27. Here’s what the late Washington lawyer James H. Rowe Jr. once told Broder: “Senators don’t know how to run anything. Their staffs have to tell them what to do.”

I worked on Capitol Hill for five years. For the other 11 years of my life in Washington, I have dealt with Senate and House offices in some way—either covering them or reaching out to them in a congressional relations role. For the most part, they’re poorly run.

It’s interesting that two senators are competing for president. This year, we are assured another senatorial president will capture the White House for the first time in 48 years.

This represents a change of pace because the U.S. electorate tends to promote an executive from another part of government, or from a lower level of the executive branch, to the Oval Office—Jimmy Carter (Georgia governor), Ronald Reagan (California governor), George H.W. Bush (vice president), Bill Clinton (Arkansas governor), George W. Bush (Texas governor).

Neither Republican John McCain nor Democrat Barack Obama has much experience calling the shots. McCain was a Navy air squadron leader in the Vietnam War. Obama was a community organizer in Chicago.

But we can at least partially evaluate their executive ability by looking at their campaigns. From that perspective—and from way outside looking in—Obama maintains a clear edge.

He upset the heavy favorite for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, with a formidable grass-roots organization. It propelled him to victory in rural states like Iowa, Montana and South Dakota.

He also won enough votes in other states—through the Democrats’ proportional system—to secure the Democratic standard. He did it largely with his ground game. 

Now, he is deploying it in two states where I have spent much of my life and where Republicans usually dominate. Obama has indicated that he will contest Virginia and Indiana vigorously. He has set up nearly 20 offices in Indiana and more than two dozen in Virginia. Such a network, combined with his strong online presence, will help him register voters.

Getting them to turn out is what will determine victory. On that score, the Republican Party has proved to be more skilled than the Democrats in the past few elections, which will benefit McCain.

But McCain has not distinguished himself running his own campaign, which has had a consistent lurching quality. He fired most of his advisors a year ago. Then he made another staff overhaul in June. In the meantime, the venomous relationship between current and former advisors seeps out in leaks and unflattering anonymous comments about McCain.

In contrast, Obama runs a tight, smooth ship. It’s a model of discipline and fortitude, seldom skipping a beat.

Obama doesn’t necessarily deserve all the credit—or perhaps even most—for his operation. But at least he has made good personnel decisions and enabled the folks he has hired to excel.

The efficacy of a campaign’s operation doesn’t ensure a victory for its candidate. McCain’s unorthodox town-hall style electioneering may work on a national scale. And he does poll higher than Obama on his commander-in-chief presence.

But for now, it looks as if Obama is the better manager, which may lead to his becoming CEO of the country.

Speculation about vice presidential candidates for each party is reaching a fever pitch in Washington. Many observers think that one or both candidates will make a move before the Olympics begin Friday and suck the oxygen out of media coverage for the next two weeks.

I’m no political genius. I’m not even a political strategist, although that moniker is used so much around town that its value has diminished substantially.

So, the advice I’m about to offer Sen. John McCain about his running mate is not likely to be original. He has already thought of it, or his advisors have. But it is worth noting.

If McCain is going to choose a woman as vice president, he should definitely go with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin instead of former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina. The reason is simple: Palin is a politician.

Often, hotshot CEOs are celebrated as hard-charging, tough-minded leaders who know how to implement a vision and deliver sterling results for shareholders. Hosannas for Jack Welch are ringing in my ears now.

All of that is well and good. You would think many CEOs would have what it takes to whip government into shape and run the country efficiently, making decisions that improve the economy.

Perhaps they could bring those abilities to office. But they lack something critical in their background.

They have never run for office. They don’t know what it’s like to make themselves vulnerable to the whims of the electorate. They don’t know how to compromise with foes to accomplish goals—a common occurrence in political battles.

CEOs exist in a world where they call all the shots. Often, they select compliant boards that won’t stand up to the CEO unless some billionaire threatens to take over the company. Yes, shareholders can exact a steep price for failure. But CEOs don’t have to deal with them as individuals.

There are vast differences between the command-and-control corporate environment and the hurly-burly of politics, where the “board” (voters) determines your fate every two, four or six years.

Believe it or not, most politicians have to have humility as one of their character traits. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of arrogant pols running around Washington. Humility may be buried under layers and layers of hubris.

But if you’re going to succeed here, you also need to be willing to prostrate yourself and raise money. A politician running for most offices has to spend countless hours at fundraisers (or on the phone) pitching himself or herself as a leader who can be trusted.

Then, when they’re in office, they have to deal with the public. Washington and state capitals are not hermetically sealed universes. Politicians must stay in tune with public sentiment and adjust to it. They also must have the ability to compromise when they see their original position is a loser.

These are skills that aren’t necessarily developed in a corner office. True, many businesspeople have succeeded in politics. But they have started somewhere lower in the food chain than on a national ticket—perhaps as a mayor or governor.

Leaving aside the individual merits and drawbacks of Palin and Fiorina, which could consume an entire blog posting, Palin is clearly the one who is best qualified to be vice president.

If you’ve never sought a vote from a fellow citizen, you have no business being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.