Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

What punishment would you suggest for this Bernie?

Somehow I can't help but think that the Salon report omitted the context and the wry smile on John mcCain's face.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

....
The commentary presently is that this hurts Hillary because it strengthens the notions of her as coldly calculating and sneaky in her ambition. I think that has it right.

....
But as I was writing this, I was trying to think of any other American male politician who might have been described in those terms or with that sort of tone. And there seems to be only one...Nixon. So I have to think about that a bit.

Keep thinking, blatham.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What punishment would you suggest for this Bernie?

Somehow I can't help but think that the Salon report omitted the context and the wry smile on John mcCain's face.

Punishment? You must be catholic. Or conservative.

The point is gender as an issue in our culture broadly and in American political culture specifically.

Why would McCain's smile be 'wry', george? Because "bitch" is just the right word there but it's politically incorrect to be open about it?

Was your mother a bitch, george? Your wife? Your daughter? Should I smile wryly?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Punishment? You must be catholic. Or conservative.

Both!

blatham wrote:

The point is gender as an issue in our culture broadly and in American political culture specifically.

No more here than Canada, or France, or the UK.

blatham wrote:

Why would McCain's smile be 'wry', george? Because "bitch" is just the right word there but it's politically incorrect to be open about it?

I think you have got it there. Irony is the word.

blatham wrote:

Was your mother a bitch, george? Your wife? Your daughter? Should I smile wryly?

None literally, all figurtively, on occasion. I have often been a bastard as well. You may smile wryly or otherwise anytime you choose.

Is the air a bit thin up there on your petard?

0 Replies

Quote:

The test of leadership is what you are able to get others to do much more than what one does himself. You are of course entitled to your own opinion and vote, but you should consider the degree to which you are a capable judge of such things.

Now, this hurts my feelings.

As the vast majority of voters will not themselves have a lot of 'executive experience,' are the vast majority of voters incapable of judging such things?

I happen to believe that it isn't just what you get done that matters, but how it is done. Not just the final result. So I am unswayed by reports of executive experience w/out specific details.

I think that all of the candidates have had to show a good deal of leadership in order to reach the level they are currently at. I don't believe that the leadership that Romney or Giuliani has shown is any more impressive then any of the other candidates; Romney and Giuliani have proven successful at making money, yes. If I was voting for someone to run a business, I would vote for them. But I believe that's the wrong mentality when it comes to running the country.

The true leadership test will be getting people.. to donate, work and vote for the candidate. That's something they couldn't do themselves. It seems to me that Hillary and Obama are enjoying great success in this area - far more so then Giuliani and Romney.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote: The point is gender as an issue in our culture broadly and in American political culture specifically.
george said: No more here than Canada, or France, or the UK.

Sorry, george, but that is just plain stupid as a response because you've given yourself another "get out of thinking free" card. I didn't make a comparative claim and didn't suggest one.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reckoning
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

0 Replies

Affront was not my intent. You have my apology for that.

I agree that everyone has and ought to have an equal voice and that the question of leadership and executive management ability is, and ought to remain, subject to the judgement of all.

However that doesn't mean that the subject should not be debated and that apparently fixed ideas should not be questioned. I'm not suggesting that Obama is utterly unqualified for the presidency - only that his inexperience in this area is a valid basis for question and uncertainty.

In my experience one of the key discriminators for leadership and management that are to be successful over time is the disposition (or lack of it) of the leader to select and tolerate remedies for his/her own weaknesses within his inner councils. This can involve gaps in knowledge, ability or even behavior. No one is perfect or has it all, but to succeed one must find and tolerate the needed remedies for his own defects - a need that almost by definition is hard to see and fill. This is one of the important lessons that experience teaches, and is a very common mode of failure among those as yet untested by such challenges.

The evident defects of President Bush come quickly to mind here. He has been singularly ineffective in communicating and persuading the public of the merit of some basic priorities he has applied in his policy. Moreover he has not yet found a remedy for this defect of his. Whether this is because he doesn't "get it", or can't find a better spokesman or more effective venue, or won't accept what may be available, I certainly don't know. I can think of several good reasons for many (not all) of the most contentious elements of his policy, and therefore support them. However it would be very hard to make a case that he has been particularly persuasive on these matters.

Obama appears to be gifted rhetorically in precisely those areas in which Bush is not. The contrast naturally creates the impression that this difference in ability extends to other areas as well. Experience teaches us that this is a dangerously unwarranted illusion.

There are other central attributes of leadership that, in my view, Bush has amply demonstrated - a clear sense of purpose and priority, steadfastness in the face of difficulty, and others. Some of these contrast very starkly with the relative fecklessness and opportunism of the Clinton years. Unfortunately for him (and us) these sometimes go little noticed in the public press. The effect and significance of these things are very often not detected contemporaneously - often it is only in the context of history that they become evident. These too are areas in which the untested can surprise us - sometimes to our great misfortune.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Sorry, george, but that is just plain stupid as a response because you've given yourself another "get out of thinking free" card.

By heck Bernie- you've a neck accusing somebody of that. You're in the Premier League at the game.

0 Replies

http://boortz.com/images/funny/lifes_a_bitch_sticker.jpg

Commentary not necessary.

0 Replies

Quote:

Obama appears to be gifted rhetorically in precisely those areas in which Bush is not. The contrast naturally creates the impression that this difference in ability extends to other areas as well. Experience teaches us that this is a dangerously unwarranted illusion.

I agree with pretty much everything in your last post, and especially this part. I don't think that Obama's rhetoric is an indicator that he will be successful as the leader of our nation; but it is a clue that he could be. In the same fashion as the 'executive experience' is a strong clue to some that Romney or Giuliani could be successful. It would be nice if we could find a candidate who had the emotional and intellectual impact that Obama does, with better leadership experience, but one does not currently present itself.

I am biased for other reasons as well. I am currently seeking new employment and attempting to 'move up a rung.' As I don't have the security of knowing where I will be living in a few years for various reasons, my aspirations of starting up a business are on hold; so I must resort to bettering my situation through various employment options with existing companies and organizations.

This has naturally put me in many situations in which I am in competition with older people who have, in most cases, more 'experience' operating in the types of roles I would like to be hired into. You might understand why at this point, I tend to believe that experience is but one of the factors necessary for success at a high level Laughing

Otherwise, I wouldn't have much confidence in interviews.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well you can try to turn the difference into an advantage by subtly emphasizing your intellectual curiosity and ability to learn quickly from new experiences, as well as your adaptability and ability to 'tune in' to the needs and priorities of the organization and the people around you. These are precisely the qualities that will enable you to 'compress time' and gain the benefits of experience quickly, without necessarily accumulating the barnacles that often go with it.

Another quality is what I like to call a 'questioning attitude'. That is the disposition to think critically of what is around you and your own actions as well; to actively consider different perspectives and alternative interpretations of events and people. That too is often (but not always) a lesson learned with experience.

I offer these suggestions both because I suspect they will be relevant to your interviewers and because they are something I believe you will be readily able to project if you stop and think about them.

0 Replies

George-

What do you think about "head-hunters"?

Is the American public headhunting a new President or is it an interview board. It is a well known feature of interview boards that all their little egos are a-twitter at the thought that someone's destiny is within their power. Headhunters are concerned with their own destiny. Like football managers. If you are a good enough footballer you can put your feet on their table and spit in the waste paper basket and they'll nurse you through sex and drugs scandals as well.

I think Cyclo should breeze in asking what they have to offer that might be of some use to him.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well you can try to turn the difference into an advantage by subtly emphasizing your intellectual curiosity and ability to learn quickly from new experiences, as well as your adaptability and ability to 'tune in' to the needs and priorities of the organization and the people around you. These are precisely the qualities that will enable you to 'compress time' and gain the benefits of experience quickly, without necessarily accumulating the barnacles that often go with it.

Another quality is what I like to call a 'questioning attitude'. That is the disposition to think critically of what is around you and your own actions as well; to actively consider different perspectives and alternative interpretations of events and people. That too is often (but not always) a lesson learned with experience.

I offer these suggestions both because I suspect they will be relevant to your interviewers and because they are something I believe you will be readily able to project if you stop and think about them.

Thanks and I appreciate the advice, and will put it to use.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

George-

What do you think about "head-hunters"?

Is the American public headhunting a new President or is it an interview board. It is a well known feature of interview boards that all their little egos are a-twitter at the thought that someone's destiny is within their power. Headhunters are concerned with their own destiny. Like football managers. If you are a good enough footballer you can put your feet on their table and spit in the waste paper basket and they'll nurse you through sex and drugs scandals as well.

I think Cyclo should breeze in asking what they have to offer that might be of some use to him.

Head hunters are in the business of finding and "selling" candidate new employees for companies. Some companies use them merely to avoid liability issues in the initial screening of candidates they already know; at the other extreme, others pay the head hunter to research the industry and find new candidates. In either case the Head Hunter is usually paid only for success, getting a fee usually defined as a fraction of the salary involved.

You are right that, once the head hunter becomes convinced the candidate might fill the bill, he is usually more committed to the sale even than the candidate.

The usual ploy head hunters use is to call asking if the target might know anyone who meets certain client requirements: this is the not-very-subtle tickler to see if the recipient, himself is interested.

Some head hunters probably fall victim to the illusion that they themselves could do the jobs they are brokering, but most of those I know realize they are just finders and brokers.

I think our electoral process, particularly the primaries, are more like a beauty contest. Do the candidates look good? can they sing and dance, etc? The increasing professionalization of the process with all the attendant specialists and consultants makes it less and less an indicator of the candidates real qualities, and more those of the consultants they hire.

Cyclo should indeed make his goals and aspirations clear to them, but perhaps with a bit less breezy arrogance than you suggest.

0 Replies

I don't think anyone would 'head' hunt me anyways. I'm more of a spleen or perhaps a kidney at this stage.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Don't be too sure - it's a big world and they need everything out there!

Here, at least, professional service firms are having a hard time finding good candidates, particularly in the IT, science and engineering fields - the competition to attract qualified prospects can be intense.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But Hillary won't be charged with being a 'bald faced liar'...it's too manly. She'll be charged, as she is, with being "cold" and "ambitious" and "calculating". And that relies upon gender stereotypes in our culture where its not really appropriate for a woman to be, or want to be, in power.

Awright, call her - say - a lying cheat then, instead of an ambitious, calculating operative. If you think thats any better.. I dont care, if it fits, it fits. Doesnt sound like a difference that would do her any good to me tho..

That Crowley article we all just discussed should leave little doubt that, well, she is calculating and ambitious - and that she's set up a machine that's just that bit more calculating and ruthless than those of her opponents apparently are. Now you can say, OK, but thats simply what we need right now, like you basically did I believe (and like I'd at least halfway agree). But you cant praise her for being the kind of ruthless and calculating operative the Dems just need at this moment in time, and yet take offense when people point out that she is, well, calculating and ruthless.

Thats where you've put yourself in a corner, now, for a while already, and I'm not even sure whether you are aware of it, or whether it's some kind of cognitive dissonance. You repeatedly go quite a long way yourself in describing Hillary as the right candidate for taking down the conservative machine, once and for all, in terms of how she is, well, calculating and ruthless - to an extent the other candidates just dont quite seem to be up to. But then when other people call her things like ruthless and ambitious, you have this instant rebuttal ready about how we should all be aware that it's gender stereotypes that make us see her in those terms, or it's what the rightwing machine wants us to think.

That's a nice way to stack the cards - whatever she does that's ruthless shows how strong and well-prepared she is, but when people call her out on being ruthless, she's just the victim of how partisan and gender biases magnify those traits. But its not quite honest, and even fellow liberals here are not buying it. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

0 Replies

There is among some liberal quarters to almost worship the Clintons as if they are Gods or something. They have this mystical grip on so many people, it is one of the mysteries of modern politics in my opinion, and why are other Democrats so afraid of them? Well, maybe there are quite a few reasons, but I am beginning to have hope that the machine might be starting to come apart. If it ever does really begin to crumble, you are going to see one of the most spectacular breakups ever. Once their ability to destroy their enemies is neutralized, they are going to be one angry group of people that choose to go down with the ship, so I would steer clear of it.

Makes me think of the Third Reich. Its time to defeat them now before it ever got that bad. Go Obama! If he can't do it, I think the Repubs chances are not that bad.

The Democratic Party has been under their mafia like grip now for a long time, and are there enough Democrats with the guts and the will, and the ability to rescue their party from this pair, that is the question?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

There is among some liberal quarters to almost worship the Clintons as if they are Gods or something. [..] Makes me think of the Third Reich.

You must be joking. Even Blatham phrases his support for Hillary as nominee in purely pragmatic terms - not that she's his ideal candidate policy-wise, but the one best placed to win and push back against the Republicans.

Most rank and file Democrats dont share quite the distrust that people like Soz or me have against her, it's true, and evaluate her favourably on balance; but some degree of ambivalence is pretty much built in. There's nothing like the idolatry that Republicans cultivate for Ronald Reagan, or that briefly flickered up even for George Bush back in those heady days when Rumsfeld and Cheney were your heroes.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know