Hillary Clinton: War Hawk

Clinton’s campaign workers have been busted planting softball questions to lob at HRC during campaign stops, similar to the manner in which Bush manages and controls the questions he is asked.

Planting questions with audience members, while not unheard of in political campaigns, is generally avoided because of the embarrassing image it suggests when the tactic becomes public: that a candidate is uncomfortable facing tough questions or campaigning in unpredictable settings. NY Times.

While the qualifications to be a president are legion, a small set of overarching characteristics are essential. A president of the United States should be intelligent, a critical thinker, and have the ability to exercise control over a horde of advisors and staffers. A president should not be stupid, gullible, and oblivious to actions of those in his or her camp.

HRC is certainly intelligent. One does not make it through law school without a certain native intelligence. However, making it through law school does not necessarily mean that one is a critical thinker and it certainly does not have any bearing on whether a person is a capable manager.

Given her actions, Hillary Clinton is neither a critical thinker nor an effective manager. Taking critical thought first, as we all know and as Clinton has repeatedly stated, she was utterly duped by Bush into supporting the war in Iraq (note: I’m giving HRC the benefit of the doubt here, because if she was not duped, then she is simply as evil as Bush). Add to this her support for unconstitutional legislation such as the (un)PATRIOT Act, suspension of Habeas, or support for warrantless eavesdropping, and, as they in geekier circles — “Hillary, you fail it (’it’ is critical thinking).”

Secondly, a good president will foresee ways in which his or her staff might run amok. If the president cannot foresee such difficulties, the presidency will be fraught with scandal, devoid of credibility, and completely ineffective. Given the recent “softball questions” revelations, it’s fair to say on the management point, again, “Hillary, you fail it”. Granted, there are several possibilities regarding Clinton’s management, but none of them are positive:

1. It was intentional and is actually clever management of public image (until being found out and rightfully assigned an epithet of “spin queen”, not to mention taking a concomitant hit on critical thinking ability for failing to foresee the public displeasure); or
2. A cynical approach to management that condones with a wink and nod, those things which can’t be made official policy; or
3. Terrible management which allows staff to run rampant and which fails to foresee and forestall common problems.

I’ll give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt because it appears there is no hard evidence for nos. 1 & 2, but plenty of evidence for a lack foresight:

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, denied that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the planted question or that she was directed to call on Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff. But he confirmed that the campaign aide planted the question.

“It’s not something we do; it’s not an official campaign policy,” Mr. Elleithee said yesterday. “But it is now an official campaign policy that we will not do this moving forward.” NY Times.

We’re just now wrapping up eight years with the worst president ever. Let’s not follow it up by electing the next worst president ever.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 12th, 2007 @ 8:13 pm on the category poor judgment, deception, calculation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.