I am going to delve into politics again today. The race for the Democratic nomination continues to slog on, and the American people continue to be pounded by the incessant bickering that seems to be normal in today’s presidential elections. This race has gotten to that point where issues, and the interest of the American people have been trumped and now it is all about who can make whom look worse!
I am not an ideologue, I am a pretty independent voter. As most of you know we have three candidates left standing in the race to be the next President of the United States. Although I do not agree with everything each of these folks espouse, I also do not subscribe to the theory that our country will be in deep trouble if any of these three get elected. True ideologues that believe every bit of spin a campaign can muster will not be happy with that comment, but the reality is we have lived though some great leaders, and some not-so-great leaders. No matter which of these candidates gets elected the country will continue to operate and move forward.
This is not to say I have no opinion in regards to this election. I have a very strong opinion, and I am as guilty as most at refusing to see things objectively. I look at the presidential race as a really long job interview. We start out with a crop of candidates that work to convince us they are the best person for the job. Over time we whittle down the field to get to the two major candidates (Ralph Nader not included) that we believe should face each other in the general election. I make my decision pretty much the same way I would make any hiring decision, I look at individual experience and what each candidate has done in the past, and hopefully that will give me some idea of how each may handle things in the future. Given that I decided to look at one candidate from the standpoint of a recruiter making a decision about a job applicant. My final summation would probably look like this.
In this election a lot has been made about Hillary Clinton’s political experience, I question whether or not it is the right kind of experience. My decision to hire or not hire this individual will be based on how she has handled challenges in the past to develop an idea of how she might manage our government going forward. For Senator Clinton there are several issues that pop-up on my radar screen as major concerns.
My first concern is about the amount of, and role spin would play in another Clinton Administration. I don’t believe the Clinton Team invented spin, I do believe they have perfected it. I am confused by some of the interpretations of events that have taken place in the current campaign. The effort has been to spin losing into winning. Senator Obama’s wins don’t matter, because the states are too small, or these states won’t matter in the general election, or caucuses only favor the well-to-do, passionate voters. These are all ways of trying to distort a picture of losses and send the message these losses are irrelevant. This is okay, but as the recruiter it makes me wonder whether or not the candidate and her advisers are accepting reality. It also makes me wonder how they will handle things when they are running the government. It indicates to me they will not be able to openly deal with their failures. Every great manager I know has an uncanny ability to understand their weaknesses, accept their losses, and find solutions for getting better. Senator Clinton and her team have not demonstrated that ability.
My next concern would be what the candidate’s past record shows. The trail behind Senator Clinton’s political career is littered with issues. They are myriad red flags on her resume that would have any interviewer asking, “What is really going on here?” These are all issues we have heard about, but appear to have been deemed off-limits by the mainstream press lately. This starts in the late 1970s with Senator Clinton’s cattle futures trades. She was able to grow a $1,000 investment in a market she had little knowledge of into $100,000 in ten months. Although many of her supporters have tried to explain away this gain of $99,000 in such a short period, I have a hard time believing them. My reaction would be that the right answer is probably the most obvious answer, some other investor got her losses and she got their gains. If not then I would question why she is in politics and not working at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
It of course does not stop there. When Senator Clinton’s husband ran for his first term in 1992 we got a taste of his supposed extracurricular activities. It was during that campaign that he was accused of having an affair with another woman while he was Governor of Arkansas. At first the affair was denied, and then when tapes of phone calls were produced, the Clintons went on national TV to tell us like other married couples they had their share of challenges, but were working them out. After the election there was the firing of the White House Travel Office staff, and they were replaced by people who had closer ties to the Clintons. The people who were fired were never convicted of any wrong doing. Then of course there was the Lewinsky affair, which at first was also denied. At that time Mrs. Clinton blamed it on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” (given the former President’s previous indiscretions one would have thought she, of all people, would have caught on). President Clinton even went on national TV and lied to the American people about the incident! We all know the eventual outcome.
The stories don’t stop in the 1990s. There was the pardon of Marc Rich, a businessman accused of tax evasion, and trading with Iran during the hostage crisis. President Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich his last day in office, I am sure it is pure coincidence that Mr. Rich’s wife has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Library. There is also the $700,000 in stock Mr. Clinton was given by Accoona for giving a speech, perhaps congress should not only be looking at capping executive pay, but also fees earned from giving speeches! Then there is the Kazak deal Mr. Clinton helped orchestrate for a Canadian entrepreneur. Although I would never begrudge an individual citizen’s right to earn a living, I would be very concerned about some of these deals if that citizen’s spouse were a U.S. Senator, or future President. It gives the appearance we have put out a “For Sale” sign in the front yard of the United States and we are awaiting the best offer. What price for our dignity?
My final concern for the candidate would be the continued process of playing the role of the victim. I get the impression that whenever this person is criticized, which is admittedly quite often, the person leveling the complaint is attacked. These attacks are typically pretty visceral, and focus on demeaning the complaintant’s character. This calls into question the applicant’s ability to process negative feedback.
As I sum up the candidate I would come to the conclusion that this individual appears to have shown some poor judgement in her past business dealings. Although no laws may have been broken, the appearance of impropriety has certainly been ignored. There also seems to be a lack of willingness to accept results as they are, and a desire to skew the picture. This makes me wonder if her team can accurately and fairly report on the progress of running the government. Finally I would surmise that the candidate does not appear to be open to criticism, that this individual is more likely to attack her critics than recognize her weaknesses and strive to improve. That strikes me as being pretty much the exact same management style that has gotten us to where we are today. Make bad decisions, skew the results, and ignore the critics; not exactly a resume builder!
After assessing this candidate’s qualifications and background, and measuring those against the job requirements I have come to the conclusion that this particular candidate has not demonstrated all of the characteristics needed for the job. Although this candidate has a long track record, I am concerned about the substantial number of red flags on her resume. The past is never a perfect predictor of what may happen in the future, although how an applicant has behaved in the past is how we must base our decision.
I believe we can see these flaws coming out in Senator Clinton’s current management effort, her campaign for the presidency. She started out with the strongest brand, and plenty of cash, and yet she is getting beat. Her management style has resulted in inner squabbles among her staff and poor stewardship of campaign funds. The candidate’s team also has shown a strong reluctance to accepting events at face value and attempting to make us all believe losses are really wins, and they are the ones in the driver’s seat. At the end of the day, although she is a strong applicant, she has not demonstrated the qualifications deemed necessary for the job!