One of the underreported truths of this political season is that Barack Obama has run the tightest campaign operation since, well, the George W. Bush of 2000.  By all accounts, it appears to be an organization thriving on sincere loyalty to the candidate, personal likeability among the senior staff, and an ironclad discipline preventing unauthorized leaks to the press—all traits flagrantly lacking in the Clinton campaign.  From today's Politico,  here's why:

Clinton tapped the ranks of Sen. Charles Schumer, a hard-driving New York Democrat, for a press shop that can be as aggressive and unforgiving as the one favored by their former boss.  Obama drew from the slightly more sedate worlds of Kerry, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.).

Strategist Mark Penn, a veteran of the toughest White House battles of the 1990s, was deeply unpopular and a divisive presence within the Clinton campaign. Obama strategist David Axelrod is the anti-Penn.  In the midst of Penn’s demotion earlier this month, one Obama aide in Chicago remarked to his colleagues about the low-key and well-liked Axelrod: “Do you know how lucky we are that he is our Mark Penn?”

Jim Margolis, Obama’s media consultant, said he had planned to take a pass on the presidential race in 2008.  His first candidate, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, dropped out, and he had a rocky experience on Kerry’s 2004 campaign.  But he ended up on the same plane one day with Axelrod and began to reconsider.

“You gotta come spend a little more time with Barack,” Axelrod told him.

“You know what these things are like,” Margolis said.

“There are no assholes,” Axelrod responded.  “There are going to be no assholes on this campaign.”

When compared with the visionless, uninspired, money-hemorraghing, consultant-riddled behemoth that is the Clinton campaign, and when this kind of management style is projected onto the federal government, is it hard to guess which candidate would make a better chief executive?