Letters to the Editor
-
Blame
Thank God. At least we know that it is not Hillary's fault. I mean, we could have guessed that, because it is NEVER Hillary's fault. Or Bill's. It's clear that she's just been the victim of bad advice.
Of course the fact that she chose and retained a charlatan like Penn to direct her message might make rational people question her executive management skills. I am sure this in no way reflects poorly on her ability to be be President from day one. When her foreign policy goes poorly, she will ignore it for months and months and then blame her Secretary of State who will decided s/he wants to spend more time with their family.
This is Bush redux. Loyalty trumps competence, except that loyalty is a one-way street. Ask Patti Solis Doyle.
I used to think these long campaigns were a detriment to democracy, but I am starting to think that they are valuable after all for revealing the character of the candidates. I started this campaign off thinking that Hillary would make an excellent president and now I am convinced not only can't she win a general election, if she did, she would be a disaster. She is all the worst parts of Bill without the charisma.
-
Such a loss
$10,000,000 in donations down the toilet for Mark Penn.
That Hillary sure has good judgement.
Yeah that's the kind of person we should elect as the most powerful person in the world.
She knows just what to do, ready from day one.
Yep, she should be answering the phone for an on spot decision when the fate of the nation and the world is at stake.
-
Why?
Who told Hillary it was a good idea to go around saying that John McCain would make a better president than Obama? Or is she so self-centered that if she can't be the nominee, then she wants the Repuiblican to win?
(I'd almost (but, not) vote for McCain over her, if she becomes the Democratic nominee, just for that.)
Other than that, why do we have to hear about her campaign's in-fighting?
-
Managerial incompetance
This excellent in-depth article from the Washington Post is not just another "inside baseball" analysis. It strikingly reveals the costs of putting personal loyalty over professional competance. Senator Clinton has surrounded herself with people who make her comfortable but are not necessarily the best qualified for their jobs. She has failed miserably to manage and control the resulting fighting inside her campaign. She allowed the bitter rangling to continue for weeks upon end rather than stepping in, as a strong manager should, to resolve the debates and renew the team's focus on moving forward. She demonstrates an utter inability to weigh conflicting advice and choose a resolution. The financial collapse of her campaign in the first quarter of this year is another important indicator of her lack of competance in a crucial leadership area.
In other words, Senator Clinton's inept management of her own campaign is a tangible and important indication of her inability to shape and guide a major organization. She is not qualified to lead our nation and would clearly be a shaky hand on the fabled "red phone" in a crisis.
-
Penn, Inc.
"Penn should have been let go. He failed the campaign in developing a message and evolving the message as things changed."
Penn should have never been Clinton's senior campaign adviser. His presence in her campaign cost her my vote. His PR firm are bad, bad news, and I was stunned that he was so high-placed in her campaign. And what's more, that he was given a free hand to try to spin her candidacy the way he did. They need to show Penn the door, but it was a terrible oversight on the part of the Clintons to have even let him into the room.
-
A Clinton White House
Sure looks like it would be serene. Would there be fighting over who gets to answer the phone at 3AM? From this campaign so far, it's clear that Hillary is terrible in an executive role.
Come on PA, save us from this mess and vote Obama.
-
Who should have been let go?
Obama's economic advisor, that's who.
-
Really, Logical?
Then who should be let go from Hillary's campaign, since Canadian papers have reported the first time the NAFTA story got traction, it was Hillary's campaign that said to take the statements "with a grain of salt".
-
Let's hope Obama (no pun or irony intended)...
...doesn't really go too negative on Clinton.*
No need to antagonize any more of Hillary's voters when the math shows it's over, and her campaign continues to fall apart anyway.
I wonder if/when we'll hear the Penn story repeated for Howard Wolfson, the man who looks like a cross between Howard Duffy and Darth Cheney.
*Yes, I realize her backers believe he's been too negative all along, and his believe he's gone easy.
-
Yes, instantgratification, really.
I have responded to you twice on this in the Blame Canada comments. Anybody interested and/or with so little life, can see what I said there.