Many of people here seem to be adsorbed by Hillary’s seemingly presidential experience , using HR manager guideline for job interview for a prospect employee. I remember that during Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal, many people in press and left wing did raise the issue on how US President should be viewed; CEO or Leader, implying that being a CEO, a personal mistake on private personal life should be private and be excused. That debate did not last long and concluded by the impeachment of President Clinton by US Congress.
Now again, is US President to US like CEO to a company? I do not think it is. Nor do many of us here and, presumably. But there seem to always be some people who can not restrain themselves from mentality and reasoning as a HR manager. They think Hillary is so experienced, so detailed oriented in policy level, so prolific in high level government services and etc. That is much like the way a HR manager interview a job applicant, is it not? That is not way Americans select their President. It has never been.
Americans are idealists, driven by briefs, ideas and dreams. While every election has its own policy and issue preferences such as election 08’s healthcare, Iraq war, job and economy, as a whole, Americans never deviate from their keen, idealistic, dream-driven , political instinct. Deep in their hearts, they long for leadership to lead them to that better place in life. They long for moving forward. In other words, they long for a navigator, not manager. As one of the greatest President in modern times said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny”.
Now, back to the experience quality issue. For the sake of discussion, assuming US President is CEO of the country. Is Hillary qualified more than other? Let’s put her in that chair for sake of discussion, shall we?
So far, what has she done on her own when she is responsible for it? The list should not be long: health care, the travel office, her Presidential campaign, Paula Jones, her US Senate run.
-Health Care: needless to say, a disaster that cost Democratic Party majority in both house and Senate
-The travel office: not even smoothly by the standard of a layman. It was not big personnel issue but handled so carelessly that it turned a permanent scandal on Clinton Administration
-Paula Jones: she was supposed to protect Bill Clinton from this kind of lurid stuff . Instead, she arm-twisted the poor girl too hard that it backfired right to Clintons. I mean hiring private investigators to harass the girls like Paula and Willey and etc, what in the world was she thinking?
-Her US Senate run: it was achievement but against rookie republican state sentor who jammed into the race at 11th hour
-Her Presidential campaign in 2008: now this is the most revealing
Based on a few of articles published so far on web(google key words: Hillary Clinton campaign, mistake, blunder, difficulties, management and etc), I can easily agree with these:
* Wrong personnel skill: Loyalty tramps over qualification. A lot of people were surprised and voted no confidence on Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle and others way before the campaign. But she insisted using them to run her campaign because of their unwavering loyalty to her in the past, not of qualifications. Do you know that Mark Penn never run any campaign before? Wrong personnel skill is number#1 skill for any manager at any level
* Poor strategy: Clinton campaign had coffered huge cash before Super Tuesday, not small advantage over Obama. They spent a huge bulk of it on selected delegate-rich states, instead of all states, thinking shock-awe type of win to knock down Obama once for all. As it turned otherwise later, they realized they did not have plan B in place and scrambled in a hurry to counter Obama surge, short of cash( they spent most of it on Super Tuesday), short of personnel on ground; short of ideas of counter-attack;
* Poor financial management: See this for detail. You would be shocked.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/clinton_donors_worried_by_campaigns_spending/
In these three areas: personnel skill, strategic thinking and financial management, the very 3 key areas for CEO selection, Hillary show no trait that she has mastered and used well by any standard of any Board Directors for any type of CEO in this country. By the way, detail oriented, I doubt, is something that CEO should be required of.
But still, people refused to admit that the woman cannot do anything right. She just can't do anything right on her own. Period.
Now again, is US President to US like CEO to a company? I do not think it is. Nor do many of us here and, presumably. But there seem to always be some people who can not restrain themselves from mentality and reasoning as a HR manager. They think Hillary is so experienced, so detailed oriented in policy level, so prolific in high level government services and etc. That is much like the way a HR manager interview a job applicant, is it not? That is not way Americans select their President. It has never been.
Americans are idealists, driven by briefs, ideas and dreams. While every election has its own policy and issue preferences such as election 08’s healthcare, Iraq war, job and economy, as a whole, Americans never deviate from their keen, idealistic, dream-driven , political instinct. Deep in their hearts, they long for leadership to lead them to that better place in life. They long for moving forward. In other words, they long for a navigator, not manager. As one of the greatest President in modern times said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny”.
Now, back to the experience quality issue. For the sake of discussion, assuming US President is CEO of the country. Is Hillary qualified more than other? Let’s put her in that chair for sake of discussion, shall we?
So far, what has she done on her own when she is responsible for it? The list should not be long: health care, the travel office, her Presidential campaign, Paula Jones, her US Senate run.
-Health Care: needless to say, a disaster that cost Democratic Party majority in both house and Senate
-The travel office: not even smoothly by the standard of a layman. It was not big personnel issue but handled so carelessly that it turned a permanent scandal on Clinton Administration
-Paula Jones: she was supposed to protect Bill Clinton from this kind of lurid stuff . Instead, she arm-twisted the poor girl too hard that it backfired right to Clintons. I mean hiring private investigators to harass the girls like Paula and Willey and etc, what in the world was she thinking?
-Her US Senate run: it was achievement but against rookie republican state sentor who jammed into the race at 11th hour
-Her Presidential campaign in 2008: now this is the most revealing
Based on a few of articles published so far on web(google key words: Hillary Clinton campaign, mistake, blunder, difficulties, management and etc), I can easily agree with these:
* Wrong personnel skill: Loyalty tramps over qualification. A lot of people were surprised and voted no confidence on Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle and others way before the campaign. But she insisted using them to run her campaign because of their unwavering loyalty to her in the past, not of qualifications. Do you know that Mark Penn never run any campaign before? Wrong personnel skill is number#1 skill for any manager at any level
* Poor strategy: Clinton campaign had coffered huge cash before Super Tuesday, not small advantage over Obama. They spent a huge bulk of it on selected delegate-rich states, instead of all states, thinking shock-awe type of win to knock down Obama once for all. As it turned otherwise later, they realized they did not have plan B in place and scrambled in a hurry to counter Obama surge, short of cash( they spent most of it on Super Tuesday), short of personnel on ground; short of ideas of counter-attack;
* Poor financial management: See this for detail. You would be shocked.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/clinton_donors_worried_by_campaigns_spending/
In these three areas: personnel skill, strategic thinking and financial management, the very 3 key areas for CEO selection, Hillary show no trait that she has mastered and used well by any standard of any Board Directors for any type of CEO in this country. By the way, detail oriented, I doubt, is something that CEO should be required of.
But still, people refused to admit that the woman cannot do anything right. She just can't do anything right on her own. Period.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
