The Bowdoinham Democratic caucus was a great place to be on Sunday. Excellent turnout and engaging discussions about the issues, all buoyed by the general ebullience that comes from having a choice between two strong candidates.

This was my first caucus. If I learned one thing from the experience, it was this: be sure you’re ready to articulate the rationale for your decision before you walk into the room.

When you’re voting, you don’t necessarily need to be able to explain your choice. It’s a private and personal expression — you can just walk in and vote for the candidate you prefer. No one will ask you to justify that decision.

Not so in a caucus. When the call came to gather together on one side or the other, everyone’s preference was laid bare. And huddled with the 50 or so other Hillary Clinton backers, I had the unique experience of looking across at the sea of Bernie supporters and seeing, among many other faces, just about everyone I know in town. And not just people I know — people I respect, whose opinions I value.

And so it went. Speeches were given. Applause was bestowed. People were counted. A microcosm of American democracy. It was fun.

When all was said and done, a few friends quizzed me – respectfully, curiously – on my decision. I did my best to explain what led me to the Clinton corner: she’s been tested; she gets into the mix on policy, and I like that; she’s led on a global stage. Sure, she’s taken some bad votes; evolved on some important issues, okay. But on the whole…I’m just more comfortable with her in the job.

As for Bernie, of course I like him — how could I not? I like his ideas, and I admire his consistency. I love his style of campaigning. In my own way, I definitely Feel the Bern.

And yet, there I was, with the 33% of caucus-goers backing Hillary. Honestly, my explanation as to why left me a little cold. And here’s the thing: I’m not cold on Hillary. I didn’t need to hold my nose to caucus for her. So why did I feel like it was such a struggle to articulate why?

I marinated on this all evening. What I finally realized was that my support for Hillary flows from how I view the presidency. It’s influenced by the aspect of that job I consider most critical.

A president plays many roles: Commander in Chief, Chief Diplomat, Chief of Party. What I realized is that, to me — a former federal employee with a keen focus on the importance of smart management to high-functioning organizations — the role I put the most weight on is that of Chief Administrator… “Manager in Chief.”

The presidency is an enormous management challenge. The biggest on the planet, in fact. With a combined 4.2 million U.S. soldiers and civilians, the United States government is the world’s largest employer. These employees look to the president to lead them, to direct their efforts, and to make the machinery of government run. No individual has more control over the efficiency and effectiveness of a bigger or more consequential organization.

In unpacking why I support Hillary, I realized I was weighting the qualities of hers that I thought would make her the best manager more highly than other traits. In my own experience, I’ve learned how critical management is to a successful organization, and how difficult it is to do well. I’ve reported to all sorts of managers, and worked at being a better one myself. At the presidential level, the opportunity to improve the state of the nation and the world through sound management is unparalleled. Looked at this way, the choice between Bernie and Hillary was much clearer.

Of course there is no single recipe for “good management.” But in any list of attributes, the ability to build consensus and lead toward a common goal must be chief among them. And this is where Bernie — as much as I agree with him on so many issues — loses me.

Over 25 years in the US Congress, Bernie has rarely collaborated on major legislation. He has stayed ideologically pure, but doing so has meant he stayed on the perimeter. That’s commendable in many respects; it makes him a trusted and consistent voice on progressive issues, unsullied by a system designed to force compromises. But it begs the question: What about his service suggests he’s the best person to run the government? Beyond building awareness, where has he built consensus with his colleagues? Where has he led progress?

During slightly less time in the Senate, Hillary sponsored or co-sponsored over twice as many bills that became law as Bernie did. And she did so in a Senate that was controlled by Republicans for more of the time. There are many ways to interpret this, but to me it suggests she can put aside differences, collaborate, lead, and get things done.

I’m also conscious of the fact that not one of Bernie’s longstanding Senate colleagues has endorsed him. Are they all part of the establishment? Maybe. Or do they recognize that, while unquestionably principled, Bernie has never worked effectively to build consensus or to lead, and a president needs to do both?

I’m a firm believer that advocacy like Bernie’s is essential for progress. I don’t disagree with most of his positions. I disagree that the way he has pursued them makes him the best person to lead the nation.

In Hillary I see an effective manager. She has built consensus; she has led. She has been wrong, and there are certainly times where she has not been as progressive as I would like. But she has been right far more often. Most importantly, she has been in the mix. She has been unflagging in her support for stronger social programs, pay equity, and smart diplomacy. To me, without question, she is the person best-suited to make the machinery of government run smoothly, and in the correct direction.

It took me some time to articulate it, but I’m glad the caucus helped me find the words. This is why I stood where I did.