Letters to the Editor
-
Wow..another NYT article critical of Clinton
This makes how many? It's odd that their description of Clinton is the polar opposite of the popular one that considers her a control freak who works long hours and doesn't delegate much. It's also odd that Bill Clinton, who has been heavily involved in her campaign, did not either advise her about taking a more active role in the day to day activities or step in and help himself. Odd fact No. 3 - The Clinton campaign has been reputed to be at odds for the last few weeks, but no matter what happens there is no reported discord from the Obama camp. It's not odd that a campaign that is winning would have less discord, but none whatsoever? Surely there are a few bruised ego's on Obama's staff. There was a time when I would read a NTY article and take it on faith that it was true. Now... I've read too many articles from them that are biased and poorly reported. I always wonder how much is true and how much is spin, who planted the stories and who benefits.
-
@-- jebldmm
Perhaps it's some kind of vast, right-wing conspiracy?
-
the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise."
This concept has come from multiple sources multiple times so I don't think it's the "latest clinton hit job". This is, perhaps, one of the biggest red flags about this candidacy. We've been doing business this way for 7 years and it has been a disaster from start to finish.
-
Gee...who does this sound like?
"Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise."
GWB anyone?
-
A Rube Goldberg contraption that is fascinating to watch
I'm fascinated how often the Clinton campaign themes start with something Bill Clinton mouths off in public, followed by a scramble by the rest of the campaign to get in line with the message. It's very reminiscent of the disorganization of the Clinton I administration, but not very much like the Bill's own sleek campaigns for president.
THe difference is interesting because it probably shows the extent to which Bill Clinton himself deferred to his War Room. When Bill actually took over, chaos ensued and the message wandered (until he got some tough chiefs of staff). A lot of what we praise Bill Clinton for had little to do with him. He was a hollow vessel.
But not quite. There are times when he settles on an instinct that gets the ball rolling. He's a gambler personality. Losing his bets in South Carolina, winning them in Texas.
But, shouldn't this article be about Hillary? She also defers to the machine, but her machine has too many moving parts and consumes too many doughnuts. It's difficult to imagine how "her" campaign predicts that her own administration would function.
Or dysfunction. Despite the weird SNL skit last Saturday, it seems more likely that Hillary would be the one making the 3AM phone call. But to whom?
-
Experience?
"Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise."
Haven't we already had 8 years of nepotism and blind loyalty to friends and supporters with disastrous results? And if loyalty is in fact more important than experience, then isn't it ironic that Hillary is making it the central issue in her campaign.
And speaking of experience, Alex, could you please (pretty please!) post something about how publications have come out and said that Hillary's perhaps 'mis-spoke' regarding her foreign service "experience," specifically her role in "bringing peace to Northern Ireland." Why hasn't this become a bigger issue in the mainstream media?
1)http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/03/hillarys_foreignpolicy_experie.cfm
2)http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_8511359
3)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
-
Valuing loyalty over experience!
"the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise."
Well doesn't that remind of 7+ years of someone who is still plaguing us? Do we need 4 or 8 more years of an imperial presidency? Haven't we learned the hard way?
NO TO "W" REDUX!
-
"Delegated decisions large and small and deferred to advisers on critical questions"
Yes, you can see that from a mile away. That is why Clinton appears so calculating and shifty in her viewpoints. They are not entirely hers, but instead are fed to her by her advisers.
I don't think a candidate has to be completely hands-on to be effective. But she does have to make it clear that her campaign must focus on her ideas, and that concepts must flow from the top down, so the campaign looks like the candidate, rather than bottom up, which tends to make a candidate look wobbly.
-
I've never trusted anything the Times had to say about Clinton
ever since they endorsed her for the nomination.
-
Salon's Daily Negative Clinton Article
Salon's Daily Negative Clinton Article - that's all this is. At least there is only one today. Often there are two or three. Are you in cahoots with the NYT's?
-
All in all, it sounds like she'd make a sensational president!
This campaign is just a glimpse of the nighmare the nation would be in for should she actually be elected. Sure, she may have "35 years of experience," but no one ever said it was GOOD experience. She fucked up her little healthcare reform party in '93 just for starters and it sounds like she hasn't improved with age.
-
Who Cares?
Funny, a few days after Obama's top foreign affairs advisor is revealed to be a political neophyte and incompetent (the 'monster' comment, blabbing on British TV and might I add, the Obama economic guru, Goolsbee, blabbing at the Canadian Embassy), you figure out a way to presumably "even up" the coverage. Just gotta' find a negative about HRC's campaign. This is what the media does now: Serious gaffes on Obama's part are minimized by this sort of journalistic pap. It goes like this: Obama screws up and the media slashes HRC out of their pseudo-committment to be fair to both candidates. My question is, why are you journalists so gleeful about slashing at HRC and so hesitant to find anything troubling about Obama?
-
She can't manage ...
...her way out of a brown bag. Hillary Clinton does not have experience leading anything larger than a Senate office of under 20 people. Despite her extravagant (and unexamined) claims about her leadership prowess, Senator Clinton has zero relevant experience that prepares her for assuming the presidency. The fact that she is a "fighter" is well established. Everything else on her resume is tragically baseless boasting.