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.