The only "zero" I've seen is the collective idiocy of the Big 3. In the past, I've thought that no one could rival pharma and /or insurance execs for pure arrogrance...well, maybe bankers...but these automakers are working hard to prove me wrong.
Sadly, they're not working nearly as hard to make products that a human would want.
The bailout is already opposed by a majority of people. And revelations like the one you discussed merely weaken their already tenuous position. My hope is that Obama will either:
1) Refuse a bailout, or
2) Offer a bailout with many requirements and restrictions
I suspect it will be latter, but given his stand on environmentalism and alternative energies, I can't seem him permitting the companies to return to business as usual.
It's a repulsive situation. On the one side you have greedy, irresponsible companies. On the other you have grossly overpaid union workers. Neither is willing to make substantive changes that would improve the industry.
You suits oversee the making of poor quality, overpriced products, and have done virtually nothing to minimize the impact of you vehicles on the earth.
You union workers assemble poor quality, overpriced products while earning, on average, far too much money. $73/ hr loaded? Seriously? Not to mention the employee grant fund and other ridiculous perks.
$1,500 more PER CAR than the Japanese companies. And by the way, their cars don't suck.
How can you possibly justify that? No, wait- it's worse. Not only do you justify it, you want taxpayers to pay YOU to continue doing it.
If I had any say in the matter, I'd be telling you to watch you ass on the way out. You're own behavior and attitude has totally queered the deal in my book.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Does GM stand for "Gigantic Morons?"
So, I was flipping through the radio on the way home last night and happened upon Sean Hannity interviewing some big exec from GM about his upcoming congressional testimony. Hannity goes on talking about how the real problem that has driven the U.S. automakers into the ground is too much government regulation. The GM guy then goes on about how he doesn't think that the bailout money should come with strings attached forcing GM to make more fuel efficient cars because, to paraphrase him, people started buying fuel efficient cars in droves when the price of gas went up to over $4.00 a gallon, but now that it's back down to under $2.00 a gallon people are abandoning that practice and going back to buying large SUVs and trucks. He then says that the American people are smart consumers and shouldn't be forced to buy fuel efficient cars if they don't want to.
All I've got to say to that is, WTF is this guy smoking? Doesn't he realize that lower gas prices are just temporary and a result of the anemic world economy right now and that there's no reason why the gas prices will not go right back up to well over $3.00 a gallon soon enough? And doesn't he realize that his very argument for why they should not be forced to make fuel efficient cars (because consumers are buying fuel hogs again now that gas prices are low) is in fact a great reason for why they SHOULD be forced to do so (because they won't do so unless forced to because they'll just ignorantly hope that people will continue buying these idiotic huge cars)? And don't they realize that such idiocy is exactly how they got into this mess in the first place?
It was really startling to me to hear this guy use the temporary bump back up in big car sales as a result of a temporary downturn in gas prices as a sign that the auto industry will handle itself well in the future if we just throw 10 billion dollars at each company and leave them be. It further reinforced the idea in my mind that the only way these guys will change is when forced to at the end of a gun (or when the alternative is simply going bankrupt).
Idiots.
All I've got to say to that is, WTF is this guy smoking? Doesn't he realize that lower gas prices are just temporary and a result of the anemic world economy right now and that there's no reason why the gas prices will not go right back up to well over $3.00 a gallon soon enough? And doesn't he realize that his very argument for why they should not be forced to make fuel efficient cars (because consumers are buying fuel hogs again now that gas prices are low) is in fact a great reason for why they SHOULD be forced to do so (because they won't do so unless forced to because they'll just ignorantly hope that people will continue buying these idiotic huge cars)? And don't they realize that such idiocy is exactly how they got into this mess in the first place?
It was really startling to me to hear this guy use the temporary bump back up in big car sales as a result of a temporary downturn in gas prices as a sign that the auto industry will handle itself well in the future if we just throw 10 billion dollars at each company and leave them be. It further reinforced the idea in my mind that the only way these guys will change is when forced to at the end of a gun (or when the alternative is simply going bankrupt).
Idiots.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Media: Liberal, yet Stupid.
Regarding unemployment-
CNN recently posted this article referencing a *cough* study by CareerBuilder.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/11/24/cb.best.cities.find.jobs/index.html
This is what happens when idiots get a hold of statistics.
CNN recently posted this article referencing a *cough* study by CareerBuilder.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/11/24/cb.best.cities.find.jobs/index.html
This is what happens when idiots get a hold of statistics.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Bailout my piggy bank, please
The bailout of Citibank worked! This is the first day in a long time that I haven't dreaded looking at the stock market. Maybe Congress knows what it is doing, giving money to the banks and not failing industries. Or maybe they got lucky, for a day.
National Security (Like Life) is a Highway . . .
Our congressional leaders want to ride it all night long. That didn't make sense, but I just got around to watching the episode of The Office in which that song was played at least 4-5 times and it's now stuck in my head.
Anywhoo . . . regarding the national security issue, I think the #1 most direct reason why having domestic car making capacity is such an issue is because, thinking back to WWII, it was the domestic car makers that turned their efforts quickly from producing cars to producing military vehicles like jeeps, tanks and bombers. If we lose that heavy industrial capacity, in a time of national crisis in which we suddenly needed to have thousands of more tanks and airplanes, we'd have to waste a lot more time building the factories to make them rather than just retrofitting the ones we currently have. Admittedly, this is a longshot national security issue as, in the age we're in, it doesn't seem too likely we'd get bogged down in a huge landwar, but then again, prior to our invasion of Iraq and after what we did in Bosnia, I didn't think we'd see the U.S. actually occupying another nation in our lifetimes. I suppose there are more indirect national security concerns like the economy in general, but I think that the one I mentioned is probably the most important one.
Regarding the commercials, I've often wondered how cost effective car commercials for established brands like the Big 3 are. Obviously, they are effective in some degree because I think a big reason why huge cars took off as a phenomenon is because of the slick advertising campaigns the car manufacturers used to make people want cars like that. I just wonder, more importantly, whether the car manufacturers have any idea how effective their commercials are (i.e. whether they are getting their money's worth). Based on their behavior, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they just put these commercials out there with no accountability.
I love, by the way, this fact that when the heads of the Big 3 were called to Congress for the purpose of begging for a bailout, they came in 3 seperate private jets. It's the perfect example of how completely tone deaf these people are to the mood of the country. Of course, substantively, they then got there and pretty much said "give us money pretty please" with no plan for how it was going to be used. Smart. These guys are like the underwear gnomes in that episode of South Park. Step 1, steal underwear, Step 3, profit, Step 2, ????.
I've heard rumblings that Obama sees this need for a Big 3 bailout as a chance to use the Big 3 towards the bigger goals of weaning us off foreign oil/helping the environment by conditioning any funds on a radical overhaul of the way the car companies make cars. Establishing high fuel efficiency minimums, etc. It's a well known fact at this point that the Chinese lettering for "Crisis" also means "Opportunity." This would seem to perfectly embody that concept.
Anywhoo . . . regarding the national security issue, I think the #1 most direct reason why having domestic car making capacity is such an issue is because, thinking back to WWII, it was the domestic car makers that turned their efforts quickly from producing cars to producing military vehicles like jeeps, tanks and bombers. If we lose that heavy industrial capacity, in a time of national crisis in which we suddenly needed to have thousands of more tanks and airplanes, we'd have to waste a lot more time building the factories to make them rather than just retrofitting the ones we currently have. Admittedly, this is a longshot national security issue as, in the age we're in, it doesn't seem too likely we'd get bogged down in a huge landwar, but then again, prior to our invasion of Iraq and after what we did in Bosnia, I didn't think we'd see the U.S. actually occupying another nation in our lifetimes. I suppose there are more indirect national security concerns like the economy in general, but I think that the one I mentioned is probably the most important one.
Regarding the commercials, I've often wondered how cost effective car commercials for established brands like the Big 3 are. Obviously, they are effective in some degree because I think a big reason why huge cars took off as a phenomenon is because of the slick advertising campaigns the car manufacturers used to make people want cars like that. I just wonder, more importantly, whether the car manufacturers have any idea how effective their commercials are (i.e. whether they are getting their money's worth). Based on their behavior, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they just put these commercials out there with no accountability.
I love, by the way, this fact that when the heads of the Big 3 were called to Congress for the purpose of begging for a bailout, they came in 3 seperate private jets. It's the perfect example of how completely tone deaf these people are to the mood of the country. Of course, substantively, they then got there and pretty much said "give us money pretty please" with no plan for how it was going to be used. Smart. These guys are like the underwear gnomes in that episode of South Park. Step 1, steal underwear, Step 3, profit, Step 2, ????.
I've heard rumblings that Obama sees this need for a Big 3 bailout as a chance to use the Big 3 towards the bigger goals of weaning us off foreign oil/helping the environment by conditioning any funds on a radical overhaul of the way the car companies make cars. Establishing high fuel efficiency minimums, etc. It's a well known fact at this point that the Chinese lettering for "Crisis" also means "Opportunity." This would seem to perfectly embody that concept.
Even More Tenuous-er
Go one step further...Americans need access to poor quality unreliable vehicles so that there remains a high need for mechanics and auto clubs like AAA. Turns out they're the secret linchpin to the economy and must be insulated from failure.
Here's another question:
How many commerical sets have you seen that do NOT include a car commerical?
I'd be willing to wager that at least 70% of commerical sets include an automobile ad. So it's reasonable to ask this-
If you auto makers are hemmorhaging money faster than David Wells eats doughnuts, how can you justify the exorbitant amount of advertising dollars you spend hawking you crappy wares?
Now I'll be fair. According to Nielsen, advertising numbers are actually down this year for the Big 3. Yet, the totals are still staggering:
GM...you spent $1.25 BILLION on advertising in the first half of 2008.
Ford, you topped out just under $1 BILLION.
Chysler, you were somewhat more responsible (used loosely) at half a BILLION.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/auto-ad-spend/
You guys are losing billions of dollars per year, and have been for a number of years, yet you feel it's wise to drop 10 figures bombarding America with commericals. Do you really believe that there's a single person in this country who doesn't know what you sell?
I guess it's an old ad-man technique. If you can't make better products, then at least be louder than the other guy. And do it more often.
Here's another question:
How many commerical sets have you seen that do NOT include a car commerical?
I'd be willing to wager that at least 70% of commerical sets include an automobile ad. So it's reasonable to ask this-
If you auto makers are hemmorhaging money faster than David Wells eats doughnuts, how can you justify the exorbitant amount of advertising dollars you spend hawking you crappy wares?
Now I'll be fair. According to Nielsen, advertising numbers are actually down this year for the Big 3. Yet, the totals are still staggering:
GM...you spent $1.25 BILLION on advertising in the first half of 2008.
Ford, you topped out just under $1 BILLION.
Chysler, you were somewhat more responsible (used loosely) at half a BILLION.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/auto-ad-spend/
You guys are losing billions of dollars per year, and have been for a number of years, yet you feel it's wise to drop 10 figures bombarding America with commericals. Do you really believe that there's a single person in this country who doesn't know what you sell?
I guess it's an old ad-man technique. If you can't make better products, then at least be louder than the other guy. And do it more often.
Friday, November 21, 2008
It's a matter of National Security
Please explain to me why the auto industry is so important to our national security that we cannot let it fail?
I understand that our military uses tanks, hummers, and all kinds of automobiles to fight wars. In that regard, I am sure the Government could find a way to pony up just enough money to insure a domestic supply of these vehicles from a smaller automobile industry. But, I am unclear as to why American-made automobiles must be available to the public at large, even if many people do not want to buy them. Is it because in the event of a terrorist attack, we are going to want to get the hell out of wherever is under attack quickly? That didn't work so well in "The Happening" (n.b. don't watch that movie). Or is a more tenuous argument like people need American cars to get to their jobs so they can make money and support our Government through taxes?
I understand that our military uses tanks, hummers, and all kinds of automobiles to fight wars. In that regard, I am sure the Government could find a way to pony up just enough money to insure a domestic supply of these vehicles from a smaller automobile industry. But, I am unclear as to why American-made automobiles must be available to the public at large, even if many people do not want to buy them. Is it because in the event of a terrorist attack, we are going to want to get the hell out of wherever is under attack quickly? That didn't work so well in "The Happening" (n.b. don't watch that movie). Or is a more tenuous argument like people need American cars to get to their jobs so they can make money and support our Government through taxes?
Cabinet Diversity - WoW
I just wanted to add that Obama has a Tauren Shaman working closing with him, as co-chair of his FCC transition team. This could help explain the diversity of his picks.
One Nation, Except When We Don't Wanna Be...
I agree. It is absolutely flabbersgasting to me that we don't have a nationwide voting process. Especially for nationwide elections! How is that justifiable?
And if any of you lawayers start spewing constitutional law at me, I'll vomit- that question was largely rhetorical.
I'm all for states' rights, but there are a number of things that I believe should be nationalized. Voting and licensure (fishing, driving, etc.) chief among them.
And if any of you lawayers start spewing constitutional law at me, I'll vomit- that question was largely rhetorical.
I'm all for states' rights, but there are a number of things that I believe should be nationalized. Voting and licensure (fishing, driving, etc.) chief among them.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Fun with Idiots Disenfanchising Themselves
I thought this was interesting both in terms of showing the task that the people recounting the ballots are faced with and for showing how stupid some people can be in filling out their ballots (and how petty some of the campaign monitors for each campaign can be in trying to disallow votes). This all just reinforces in my mind that there should be a single, national format for ballots instead of a hodgepodge from state to state and even from polling place to polling place within states. It might not eliminate all the problems, but it would certainly help alleviate confusion if every single election wherever you went the same kinds of ballots were used.
I Bet Joe the Builder Could Build a Heck of a Cabinet
I think a characteristic of Obama's cabinet picks so far has been picking people who are inarguably qualified to do the jobs they are picked to do, as well as an ability to put together a diverse cabinet without leaving any scent of affirmative action (see first part of the sentence for why). Amongst the 4 picks that have been announced or rumored, 1 is a black man (AG), 2 are women (SoS and Homeland Security) and one is a whitey white old white guy (Daschle). Hell, if you want to include his close staff, he's even got a jewish guy thrown into the mix as his chief of staff (note to all the crazies out there who questioned Obama's commitment to Israel, check out Rahm Emmanuel's Wikipedia entry and then tell me Obama might be soft on the issue of the U.S.'s relationship with Israel). If Hillary falls through for SoS for whatever reason, he's likely to put Richardson, a hispanic, in there. It should be interesting when he gets to make Supreme Court picks one day. I find it unlikely that he'd get to make two picks and put 2 white guys on there as Bush did.
To return to an earlier point made about how Obama's cabinet picks hadn't really represented "change," I think that he's in a tough position on that issue. Democrats had a two term presidency only 8 years ago, so a lot of people who are qualified to take top positions now inevitably had some position in the Clinton administration (Emmanuel, Holder, Hillary Clinton) or, if they didn't, were Senators recently (Daschle, Clinton). Napolitano breaks that mold somewhat and I think we can expect to see more mold breaking picks going forward, but I think that what Obama's picks so far tell us, consistent with his behavior ever since he started his campaign for President and before that, is that he's not interested in being just a "movement" candidate or a "movement" President. He actually has things he wants to get done and these are the people who will know how to make sure that those things get done (universal health care, weening us off foreign oil while "going green" at the same time, etc.) I always took the "change" mantra to be more about changing the tone of politics and the vicious tit for tat and "perpetual campaign" types of things more than anything else. I think this is what frustrates many on the right. Obama's views are fairly conventionally Democratic, but he at the same time manages to be a non-conventional Democrat and politician in general because of his tone and because of what I believe to be his pragmatism. He may hold more liberal viewpoints than 60% of the country, but I think he wants to get things done and therefore is going to play more towards the middle than the left. That's in stark contrast to President Bush who, at least since 9/11, has almost uniformly played to the right instead of the center.
To return to an earlier point made about how Obama's cabinet picks hadn't really represented "change," I think that he's in a tough position on that issue. Democrats had a two term presidency only 8 years ago, so a lot of people who are qualified to take top positions now inevitably had some position in the Clinton administration (Emmanuel, Holder, Hillary Clinton) or, if they didn't, were Senators recently (Daschle, Clinton). Napolitano breaks that mold somewhat and I think we can expect to see more mold breaking picks going forward, but I think that what Obama's picks so far tell us, consistent with his behavior ever since he started his campaign for President and before that, is that he's not interested in being just a "movement" candidate or a "movement" President. He actually has things he wants to get done and these are the people who will know how to make sure that those things get done (universal health care, weening us off foreign oil while "going green" at the same time, etc.) I always took the "change" mantra to be more about changing the tone of politics and the vicious tit for tat and "perpetual campaign" types of things more than anything else. I think this is what frustrates many on the right. Obama's views are fairly conventionally Democratic, but he at the same time manages to be a non-conventional Democrat and politician in general because of his tone and because of what I believe to be his pragmatism. He may hold more liberal viewpoints than 60% of the country, but I think he wants to get things done and therefore is going to play more towards the middle than the left. That's in stark contrast to President Bush who, at least since 9/11, has almost uniformly played to the right instead of the center.
Napolitano Dynamite
The cabinet building continues. Arizona's Governor has reportedly been tapped to lead DHS.
Interesting choices, but I haven't had any real problems thus far...
Interesting choices, but I haven't had any real problems thus far...
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Daschle Away, Daschle Away, Daschle Away All!
Tom Daschle as head of DHHS?
What does everyone think?
I'm again a bit surprised because I'm not sure it fits with the whole "change" platform, but I don't particularly object to Daschle.
What does everyone think?
I'm again a bit surprised because I'm not sure it fits with the whole "change" platform, but I don't particularly object to Daschle.
I.O.U...no wait, I. O. Me.
Yeah, I wasn't very clear. I know the distinction betwene Clinton and her campaign, and I suppose you're correct about its similarity to the protection from liability an individual enjoys by creating a corp.
I guess I find it surprising given that she loaned her campaign money personally. And I'm probably not as adept as I should be in understanding the ins and outs of campaign financing.
Anyway, it was more of a visceral reaction...How could you run up debt in your campaign and still have the fortune you do? If I were a creditor, I would be a little irked that the lifestyle is maintained while I am owed money.
I guess I find it surprising given that she loaned her campaign money personally. And I'm probably not as adept as I should be in understanding the ins and outs of campaign financing.
Anyway, it was more of a visceral reaction...How could you run up debt in your campaign and still have the fortune you do? If I were a creditor, I would be a little irked that the lifestyle is maintained while I am owed money.
Georgia on my Mind
Regarding Clinton's debt, I'm not sure why that's allowed. The fact that she's a multimillionaire doesn't really play into it, I know, as the campaign is a seperate entity from the candidate personally. It's kind of like when you start a business alone but incorporate so that you're not personally liable.
As I understand it, there are a whole series of rules related to how a defunct campaign handles its debt. For instance, I don't think the candidate is allowed to raise money to pay debt owed to herself, which in Clinton's case is substantial. As for the other "joe and jane sixpacks" she owes money to, they may wind up getting stiffed per this article if Hillary becomes SoS.
I actually haven't seen the Daily Show bit yet and the website isn't working right now. It is a strange rule they have in Georgia, and a really stupid one given the current political reality that there are two major parties and that's that. I can see it making some sense in a situation where there are 3 or more major parties. I wonder why Georgia has this rule. My pure speculation would be that maybe they implemented at some during the Jim Crow days when there were portions of the Democratic party that split away and formed the "Dixicrat" party, most famously headed in a presidential election by Strom Thurmond.
Who knows, but the upshot is that Democrats have a far better chance at 60 senate seats than has been commonly recognized in the mainstream media since election day. They've already locked up the AK senate seat, which brings them to 58, and Nate Silver's analysis showed that there's probably better than a 50% chance that Al Franken is going to win in MN once all the "undervotes" are put in his column. That would bring it up to 59 and runoff elections are all about who can get their people out. Obama has demonstrated that his people are pretty good at this, and right now a lot of his people are in GA working on it. If you had to think about which party's partisans are more motivated at this point, I'd say its probably the Democrats. In any event, 60 is really more of a symbolic number than an important one at this point. 58 is probably more than enough to get almost anything the Democrats want to do past the filibuster stage given that you can usually pick off a handful of Republicans, particularly of the Olympia Snowe/Susan Collins variety, to at least be willing to end debate on most issues. Most importantly to me, as a lawyer, the Democrats should have no problems getting almost all of Obama's judicial appointments, most famously Supreme Court nominees, but almost as important, or perhaps moreso, all the lower court judges that actually decide 99% of legal issues, through the confirmation process with a minimum of stalling.
As I understand it, there are a whole series of rules related to how a defunct campaign handles its debt. For instance, I don't think the candidate is allowed to raise money to pay debt owed to herself, which in Clinton's case is substantial. As for the other "joe and jane sixpacks" she owes money to, they may wind up getting stiffed per this article if Hillary becomes SoS.
I actually haven't seen the Daily Show bit yet and the website isn't working right now. It is a strange rule they have in Georgia, and a really stupid one given the current political reality that there are two major parties and that's that. I can see it making some sense in a situation where there are 3 or more major parties. I wonder why Georgia has this rule. My pure speculation would be that maybe they implemented at some during the Jim Crow days when there were portions of the Democratic party that split away and formed the "Dixicrat" party, most famously headed in a presidential election by Strom Thurmond.
Who knows, but the upshot is that Democrats have a far better chance at 60 senate seats than has been commonly recognized in the mainstream media since election day. They've already locked up the AK senate seat, which brings them to 58, and Nate Silver's analysis showed that there's probably better than a 50% chance that Al Franken is going to win in MN once all the "undervotes" are put in his column. That would bring it up to 59 and runoff elections are all about who can get their people out. Obama has demonstrated that his people are pretty good at this, and right now a lot of his people are in GA working on it. If you had to think about which party's partisans are more motivated at this point, I'd say its probably the Democrats. In any event, 60 is really more of a symbolic number than an important one at this point. 58 is probably more than enough to get almost anything the Democrats want to do past the filibuster stage given that you can usually pick off a handful of Republicans, particularly of the Olympia Snowe/Susan Collins variety, to at least be willing to end debate on most issues. Most importantly to me, as a lawyer, the Democrats should have no problems getting almost all of Obama's judicial appointments, most famously Supreme Court nominees, but almost as important, or perhaps moreso, all the lower court judges that actually decide 99% of legal issues, through the confirmation process with a minimum of stalling.
Miss Management
Good point. She's good at a number of things, but successful management is not among them. In fact, I was just reading about how far into debt she still is due to her presidential campaign.
Does anyone else find it odd that a multi-millionaire could be so much in debt, and be permitted to carry that type of debt for that long? It's not like a credit card bill. I'm surprised there aren't more rules about paying for your campaign.
_____________________________________
Speaking of rules and campaigns, I'm sure you saw The Daily Show's piece on the Georgia Senate Race. In addition to being hilarious and scoring major point for referencing Charlie Daniels, it highlighted Georgia's...let's say "unique" rules regarding elections. I'm not sure if I agree with the requirements.
Is a win not a win if you get only 49% rather than 51%? If I gave a crap about the GOP candidate winning, I'd be pretty peeved. Now a guy who finished 5% points back gets another crack at it, and heavyweights like Bill Clinton are lining up behind him because the major elections are over and frankly, they have nothing better to do.
Granted McCain is campaigning on the other side, but I find the whole thing to be in need of an overhaul.
Does anyone else find it odd that a multi-millionaire could be so much in debt, and be permitted to carry that type of debt for that long? It's not like a credit card bill. I'm surprised there aren't more rules about paying for your campaign.
_____________________________________
Speaking of rules and campaigns, I'm sure you saw The Daily Show's piece on the Georgia Senate Race. In addition to being hilarious and scoring major point for referencing Charlie Daniels, it highlighted Georgia's...let's say "unique" rules regarding elections. I'm not sure if I agree with the requirements.
Is a win not a win if you get only 49% rather than 51%? If I gave a crap about the GOP candidate winning, I'd be pretty peeved. Now a guy who finished 5% points back gets another crack at it, and heavyweights like Bill Clinton are lining up behind him because the major elections are over and frankly, they have nothing better to do.
Granted McCain is campaigning on the other side, but I find the whole thing to be in need of an overhaul.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I Thought They Liked to be Called "Executive Assistants"
I don't see overcoming Bill's past as being a particularly big issue for a Secretary Clinton in that he seemed to hit it off pretty well with other foreign leaders in his day and was respected by them. I think the bigger problem is the present and future in that he is sort of a one man foreign policy machine, what with his globe trotting efforts for his foundation. I'm sure some sort of arrangement can be reached though between Obama's people and the Clintons.
I also am not too concerned with her diplomatic skills. I think she's got a long history of dealing with the kinds of people she's going to have to deal with. I think she would probably be a better AG or something than SoS, but AG may be too small fry for her tastes. As it is, I'm not 100% convinced that she's going to accept SoS, but it certainly looks like it's going that way.
My bigger question regarding Hillary is her demonstrated crappy executive management skills. As noted by a bunch of people, the two big projects she's handled has been the health care issue during her husband's presidency and her own campaign for president. Both were unmitigated disasters from a management perspective. Some of the stories about the infighting that went on in her campaign, due in large part to her unwillingness to put one side or the other or both in their places, are amazing. That said, I would think that a lot of the SoS office can manage itself given that there are career employees there. I just think it will be very important for Obama to make sure she hires the right person as a deputy SoS who can keep a strong hand on the logistical management of the SoS office.
I also am not too concerned with her diplomatic skills. I think she's got a long history of dealing with the kinds of people she's going to have to deal with. I think she would probably be a better AG or something than SoS, but AG may be too small fry for her tastes. As it is, I'm not 100% convinced that she's going to accept SoS, but it certainly looks like it's going that way.
My bigger question regarding Hillary is her demonstrated crappy executive management skills. As noted by a bunch of people, the two big projects she's handled has been the health care issue during her husband's presidency and her own campaign for president. Both were unmitigated disasters from a management perspective. Some of the stories about the infighting that went on in her campaign, due in large part to her unwillingness to put one side or the other or both in their places, are amazing. That said, I would think that a lot of the SoS office can manage itself given that there are career employees there. I just think it will be very important for Obama to make sure she hires the right person as a deputy SoS who can keep a strong hand on the logistical management of the SoS office.
A FEMALE Secretary? How sexist.
Even though I nearly crapped myself at the thought of her becoming POTUS, I'm actually not opposed to Hillary being SoS. I have 2 questions though:
1. Can she overcome Bill's past actions (good AND bad)?
2. Is she adept enough at diplomacy?
I never saw diplomacy/ foreign policy as her strong suit, and can't help but wonder if there are other cabinet positions that would be better fits for her.
I think it's smart for Obama to install her in some fashion; I just hope it's in the best role possible.
1. Can she overcome Bill's past actions (good AND bad)?
2. Is she adept enough at diplomacy?
I never saw diplomacy/ foreign policy as her strong suit, and can't help but wonder if there are other cabinet positions that would be better fits for her.
I think it's smart for Obama to install her in some fashion; I just hope it's in the best role possible.
Disenfranchised Hillary Supporter
As a disenfranchised Hillary supporter, I think she would make a great SoS. She is a smart, tough, problem-solver and lord knows that our foreign affairs have a lot of problems these days. While Obama may be tempted to put a care-bear into this office to repair America's image abroad, I think Hillary would be a better choice (I am not as versed in Richardson's resume, so reserve judgment as to whether he is also tough and capable.) If we can't put her in charge of health care, secretary of state seems the next best choice.
Bitch is the new Black
At some point during the primary campaign, Tina Fey returned to her news anchor desk to deliver a hilarious monlogue regarding Hillary Clinton with the subject being, "bitch is the new black." This was followed up a week or two later by a great Tracy Morgan return to the show in which he stated, and I'm paraphrasing, "bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president bitch." I don't really have much of a point to mentioning these skits, I just thought they were really funny and they are tangentially related to my current point, which is . . .
What do you all think of this Hillary Clinton potentially as SoS development. I thought this might be an area of disagreement amongst us as I supported Obama from day 1, but never had any hate for Hillary Clinton (her campaign tactics at times are a different story), Matt, on the other hand, does not care for Clinton shall we say, while Richard intended to vote for Hillary in the VA primary but disenfranchised himself (to my great pleasure) by going to the wrong polling place.
I actually think that on the substance of it, this makes a lot of sense. She's clearly a very smart person who works hard at whatever it is she does, and further, her alleged "experience" that prepared her to be President actually has some relevance to the job of SoS. She knows many and perhaps most of these world leaders that she'd be tasked with interacting with personally. Given that interacting with foreign leaders is pretty much the definition of the SoS's job, that's a useful thing. Further, from a cravenly political point of view, she'd have nothing to gain by doing anything but her best to carry out Obama's agenda as SoS (as opposed to in the Senate where she'd be tempted to carry out her own agenda) and it's also better to have people who might be antagonistic to you at times inside the camp pissing out rather than outside the camp pissing in so to speak. This might also fit in with obama's desire to have a "team of rivals" in his cabinet (a phrase, by the way, that I'm thinking about putting "on notice" except that our current setup only allows 1 thing at a time to be on notice. There's got to be a better way.) Anyway, what do you all think?
What do you all think of this Hillary Clinton potentially as SoS development. I thought this might be an area of disagreement amongst us as I supported Obama from day 1, but never had any hate for Hillary Clinton (her campaign tactics at times are a different story), Matt, on the other hand, does not care for Clinton shall we say, while Richard intended to vote for Hillary in the VA primary but disenfranchised himself (to my great pleasure) by going to the wrong polling place.
I actually think that on the substance of it, this makes a lot of sense. She's clearly a very smart person who works hard at whatever it is she does, and further, her alleged "experience" that prepared her to be President actually has some relevance to the job of SoS. She knows many and perhaps most of these world leaders that she'd be tasked with interacting with personally. Given that interacting with foreign leaders is pretty much the definition of the SoS's job, that's a useful thing. Further, from a cravenly political point of view, she'd have nothing to gain by doing anything but her best to carry out Obama's agenda as SoS (as opposed to in the Senate where she'd be tempted to carry out her own agenda) and it's also better to have people who might be antagonistic to you at times inside the camp pissing out rather than outside the camp pissing in so to speak. This might also fit in with obama's desire to have a "team of rivals" in his cabinet (a phrase, by the way, that I'm thinking about putting "on notice" except that our current setup only allows 1 thing at a time to be on notice. There's got to be a better way.) Anyway, what do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
