Considering the startling disorganization of Hillary Clinton's campaign, her management skills are not sufficient to make an effective Chief Executive
PDXMike said 02/28, 01:11 PM
The Clinton Campaign is in startling disarray. Their 10 state losing streak is in large measure due to the fact that she has been out-organized by a former community organizer. Wherever real nuts and bolts management have been at a premium (as in caucus states), the Clinton Campaign has been thrashed. Her <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">campaign finances</a> are in frightful disarray, her messaging has been inconsistent to the point of being schizophrenic, and her leadership vision is often clouded with negativity. With regard to the latter, you might be able to win a primary election with a negative campaign, but you cannot govern with one.
P.F.C. Wintergreen said 02/28, 07:00 PM
I am by no means endorsing Hillary, but I find this argument to be quite untenable.
If running an efficient and successful campaign indicates "skills sufficient to make an effective chief executive", how do you explain all the great campaigners who made poor presidents?
Set aside that for a moment, and consider this: how many mismanaged and inept campaigns have actually produced presidents, period? I would imagine that number to be roughly zero in contemporary politics, which is surely the kind politics you are talking about.
So you are really saying, in effect, that ALL PRESIDENTS ARE GOOD PRESIDENTS(because they won, something you cannot do without a competent campaign). At best your argument is untestable...
You are now probably wondering, who are all these great campaigners who made poor presidents? I doubt we will agree, so I will leave you some options to choose amongst at your discretion:
Lyndon Johnson-Crushed Goldwater in the campaign of 64'.
Ronald Reagan-beat carter, crushed Mondale
Richard Nixon-Demolished McGovern in 72'
Bill Clinton-Need I say more?
Do you rank these presidents in the same order you rank their campaigns?
Do you rank every president this way?
PDXMike said 02/28, 07:23 PM
I will grant you that not all presidents are or were great presidents in spite of how successful or well run their campaigns were. However, you seem to concede that a modicum of competency in management was necessary for any of them to get there at all. I do think the manner in which a campaign is run gives insight into how an administration might be run.
Why is this an important issue at this time? If you are running, as Sen Clinton is, on the idea that you would be ready to govern on day one, you imply that you are also an able manager. At the very least, your campaign should reflect this ability. That claim is undercut when you, as the putative Chief Executive of your own campaign, appear to be incapable of running it in an efficient, effective, fiscally responsible manner.
Sen Clinton had an enormous financial and infrastructural advantage at the onset of this process, and should have been able to parlay those advantages into victory, were she an effective manager. You can blame her underlings and handlers if you would like, but do the decisions that she made in hiring and enabling the team that she currently has reflect well on how she would put together an administration?
P.F.C. Wintergreen said 02/28, 08:28 PM
First, I should clear something up: I am not here to defend Clinton or her level of presidential readiness. I merely argue that presidential campaigns are not reliable indicators of presidential competency..this applies to every campaign
Second, you say that I "seem to concede that..competency in management [is] necessary [to win]"
I do concede that. However, just as competency in horseback riding is not the same as competency in nuclear physics, so is competency in campaigning related to competency in governing. That is say, hardly at all.
It is indeed hard to make a specific connection between the challenges of a campaign and those of the presidency, which is why you settle on a vague concept of "management"
Regarding management, consider the case of Romney. A great private manager, a poor campaign manager. Here, good management in one area didn't=the same in another. And there is no reason to assume it would. Would Lincoln have made a good strip club manager?
In any case, we will never know what kind of presidents poor campaigners would have made, for obvious reasons. Thus, we CANNOT claim that they didn't have the stuff to be good presidents for that reason. Ditto for HC.
Comments
Add Your Comment
This has been an enjoyable debate to read thus far. I'm leaning towards Wintergreen right now, as his arguments make the most sense to me. I'll hold my vote, however, until the Face-off is over.
Austhus | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
Why won't this debate end? Mike hasn't said anything for 6 days
P.F.C. Wintergreen | 03/05/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
Anybody but Hillary!
Ganesh Ji | 02/28/08
Report Offensive Comment