Hillary Rodham Clinton: CEO

She is in my opinion:

Controlling, Insidious, Tenacious, Knowledgeable, A Prevaricator, Effective, Resolute, Intense, Smart, Experienced, Ingratiating, Duplicitous, Charming, Tough, Dedicated, Respected, Hated, Disliked, Educated, Determined, Forceful, Beguiling, Deceitful, Crafty, Offensive, Intelligent, Insightful, Understanding, Discerning, Well-informed, Devoted, and I am sure much more, both good and bad.

While I don't love the "negative" things about Hillary Clinton, she has not been running to be the "Social Director" of our country, but is running to be the "Operating President of the United States," during one of the more difficult times in our history. All of those positive words listed above are requirements of an effective CEO of our country.

While I believe that for all practical purposes her candidacy is over, I admire her fortitude and tenacity in keeping up the fight. Even her detractors must compliment her for her tenaciousness.

As a television executive at a variety of companies, I would hear ideas for television shows that were interesting to me which I rejected. When asked why I would reply: "Ideas are multitudinous and easy, execution of those ideas is expensive, difficult, and rare." The question would often be less about the program itself and more about who will write and produce the program.

I have worked for a couple of very senior executives who would inspire their Boards of Directors about their vision, and return to the office and not have a clue as to the implementation of those ideas.

The late Jack Valenti was the most ingratiating, and eloquent man I have ever met. He was also one of the brightest and charming men that I have ever known. He had one of the most difficult jobs in corporate America as President of the Motion Picture Association Of America, yet I don't believe that he could have run any of the members companies had he been called upon to do so. He possessed the "verbal and social skills to "manage" the association, but not the skill sets to run and manage a major corporation.

As a nation we are in desperate need of a person to be its Chief Executive Officer. America needs much more then a person being our nation's equivalent of the "class valedictorian." Our president must operate the government. Verbal and oratory skills are just not enough for our next president, and "I mean that in the nicest possible way."

When saying negative things about someone I have a tendency of saying at the end of a major or minor diatribe: "And I mean that in the nicest possible way." How Barack Obama "performs" as the president remains to be seen and I hope, that unlike his predecessor, he grows a lot on the job, and "hires" Americas best and brightest to do the things that need be done.

We are better then we have been, and hopefully Barack Obama can defeat his Republican adversary and lead us as a nation back into greatness that was our previous destiny.

We are more than a Warrior Nation. For the longest time we have sadly been a Warrior Nation.

Not a good thing.

Comments

[stefanielaine]

But her campaign has been a total wreck. Constant money problems, poor planning, incompetent staffers kept around out of loyalty. She'd be a wreck as a CEO. Determined? Yes. Effective? Absolutely not.

[S1m0n]

Businessmen make really lousy political leaders; the two jobs require very different skillsets.

Business guys keep thinking they're qualified to run the nation, and they have enough money that people are polite to their face, but there's a good reason why every business star from Ross Perot to Mitt Romney to Mike Bloomberg (who spent a bundle on polling, but never even got his operations launched) has bombed on the campaign trail: they don't got what it takes.

[deminmo]

Just a reminder folks, Bush has the White house until January.
He can start a war with Iran and make everyones comments here
worthless, and maintain control as President until and IF he sees
fit to give it up. You think having another Clinton presidency is bad,
Bush could call for martial law and make this democracy into
either a dictatorship and or police state! Better to keep an eye on
the guy in charge right now.

[Herrington]

And our second civil war would ensue. Our "professional" army has been becoming more and more isolated from the public. The army of Eisenhower or MacArthur would not have obeyed. How big is Blackwater anyway?

[WarriorLemming]

Norman Horowitz quote:
"Even her detractors must compliment her for her tenaciousness."

No, Mr. Horowitz. At this point I see it more as deceitful and offensive to use a couple of your words. And I'd like a few of my own words such as snide, deluded, mean-spirited, underhanded, a liar, pitiful, pathetic and shameful for using the reference "White Americans" and for the "snipper fire" story told four times without batting an eye lash.

[deminmo]

Senator Obama is a youthful, charismatic candidate who promises
so much that people are looking for. The reality is that he is a neophite
when it comes to the actual workings of Washington. He may find himself
chewed up badly either in the process of getting to the White House or doing
the things he promised, once he gets there. He has often voted present rather
than standing for an issue. He won't have the freedom to do that as a President.
Senator Clinton might not be the perfect choice, but she does know what she
faces as President. And is more likely to weather the storms.

[KiwisCanFly]

Deminmo
You are incorrect in your reasoning, " Obama has often voted present rather than standing for an issue."

Are u aware of the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois?
http://virginiadem.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/standard-operating-procedure-in-the-illinois-legislature/

Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women"s choice or any other hot-button issue.

Had HRC remembered her 8th Grade course on the state Constitution, she would have known that Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted "present" on many issues.

Your bias clouds yr reasoning.
If you really want to see an example of how Obama is aware what he faces as President then check this article out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

[DMW1]

Unfortunately, after watching the way in which she has run her campaign, I think she is much more likely to create the storms, rather than weather them.

[altohone]

We'll never know because she lost, and she has soured the electorate for any future attempts.

As for Obama, he only needs to look at what Bush did, and do the opposite. And that's almost not an exaggeration.
We also have majorities in Congress with plenty of knowledge of how things used to be done.

[altohone]

Hillary often talks to regular citizens saying she wants to be their "Commander in Chief".

That title only applies to her role as the head of our military, and using the title in addressing civilians suggests she doesn't understand the difference. Only one group must follow her orders, and I'm not in it.

In my opinion, her voting record and campaigning suggests she would be more like Valenti than a competent CEO.

[realityczech4u]

And what have you been smoking, Norm? If Hillary were to run the country the way she's run her campaign, we'd all be doomed.

[joeinvt]

I agree that she has not run her campaign well but doesn't that reflect badly on Obama? He is the clear winner but by a margin of two or three percentages points. From that point of view, your argument suggests that if she had even run even a mediocre campaign, he'd be toast.

[wakupmagy]

I respectfully disagree,.
a) How could anyone possibly consider Hillary Clinton as capable of running anything after she has been at the helm of a "corporation" with 100% brand recognition, huge financial reserves and unlimited access to media only to find the company $15 million dollars in debt and losing within a seven month period?
b) As to your argument that Obama should have been able to beat such a lousy organization more easily--you neglect the fact that much of those wasted resources were squandered by the Clinton campaign in an effort to smear him. And he had to defend himself with one hand tied behind his back. He had made a promise to forgo politics as usual and refused to get down into the mud. If Pepsi planted surrogates all over the media accusing Coke of being tainted with poison and Coke was unable to respond . . . well, that is unimaginable. And if somehow, despite all that, Coke's sales soared, you would have the Obama campaign in corporate America.
So please do not insult our intelligence by touting Hillary Clinton as anyone's idea of a successful leader--in any capacity.

[aceholiday]

clinton says "I can...I will." Obama says "WE can. We will." classic case of authoritarianism vs. democratic freedom.

[papasalas]

How do you know she would be a good CEO? What has she run? I know! Her campaing but...she wasn't a very good CEO for her campaign, was she? She had all the money, all the connections, universal fame, 200+ superdelegates before a single vote was casted and look where her campaign is now: broke. What are you talking about?

[IslandGyal]

Norman Horowitz,
The president doesn't make all the recomendations for policy in his administration, we all know that, so isn't that a key characteristic of a good CEO, to hire the best and the brightest? IF we are going to go on your premise, Hillary Clinton did NOT hire the best and the brighest to run her campaign. She picked a gang who couldn't couldn't shoot straight. That's a bad omen. I am not buying Hillary Clinton the great CEO, as that flies in the face of facts.

[MrWinky]

We've already had the "CEO Presidency" with Bush and Cheney. You want more of that?

[BADEN]

"As a nation we are in desperate need of a person to be its Chief Executive Officer. America needs much more then a person being our nation's equivalent of the "class valedictorian." Our president must operate the government."

NO NO NO AND NO...

We've seen the results so far of considering the GOVERNMENT a BUSINESS to be RUN FOR A PROFIT and the damn Harvard MBA mindset in action.

NO - We need people skilled in GOVERNANCE.....good grief - there are whole COLLEGES dedicated to this concept.

There is no "bottom line" in government. It is a SERVICE for it's CITIZENS. Period.

It is U.S., in this country.

Let's just change that BullandBear mindset - shoot, let's just eliminate it from discussion of the people's business, shall we?

And, while we're at it....WE the PEOPLE own the gas and oil and minerals underneath our national soils....let's take it back and demand proper use and payment for such.

It is all about U.S., folks.

[obamagirl1968]

George W Bush was a C student at best and got into Harvard because of his family's money. He is definitely NOT the shining example of an MBA graduate....not by far!

[Incredulous]

Isn't your country already one big Corporation? At least policy is dictated by Corporations. Why don't you just have the board members, i.e. the Corporate elite choose the CEO. Oh right! They tried, but Obama and his message of hope and change have foiled all that! He'd better watch his back. NOBODY messes with the Corporate Elite, especially the Media Corporate Elite. The Reverend Wright red herring will have been a walk in the park for Obama once he's the official nominee. The Republican smear machine, AKA the MSM will crucify Obama in ways that even Satan hasn't thought of yet. Ever since the Republicans deregulated the media industry, Corporate Media is nothing more than a propaganda tool. I mean in the most fair and balanced way of course.
Yes, congratulations to Hillary Clinton! She's shown us that Republicans don't have a monopoly on entitlement, hate, fear, or contempt for the American people. According to Hillary Clinton, white Democrats are a poor, stupid and racist lot, who'd rather toss away their principles and vote for tax cuts for millionaires and infinite war, rather than vote for the black man! And why not! Poor, stupid racist Republicans have been voting against their own economic interests for generations. And according to Hillary Clinton, Democrats are no different than Republicans. Why, if she was Republican, she'd have already won the nomination! And did I mentrion contempt for the American people! Although she thinks you're all too stupid to actually get it.

[Helzapoppin]

We don't need any more Presidents based upon the profit-above-all, amoral corporate model. The US government is not a business and cannot be run like one. Government should be the balancing force of that model, not an imitator of it.

Enough with the myth of corporate efficiency. I've worked in the private sector a long time and there is just as much bureaucracy and bad decision making out here as there is in civil service.

[Jazzcomedian]

If this campaign had been a movie, it would've been Barack "They call me Mr. Tibbs" Obama versus Hillary "Fasten your seatbelts it's gonna be a bumpy night" Clinton. We're just missing the climatic scene where he slaps her with a rejection of her for VP.