I am in sales. One of the most important lessons I've ever learned is that how you sell is a free sample of how you deliver. Let's compare the two campaigns: Hillary is ego-centric and arrogant. She thought the whole thing would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. She had no plan for afterword. She believed all the press about inevitability. She surrounded herslef with sub-par people, to the extent that they have executed a brilliant campaign, were it only 1996. They missed opportunities in new media. She is poll and consultant-driven. She relies on big donors. Her claim to fame is long policy papers, that she will impliment with the same tactics as her failed healthcare plan. The Clintons (and don't be fooled, they are a twofer) are top-down managers, who will preside as top-down throat jammers in office. That doesn't usually work out well.Obama: his experience begins as a community organizer. He has surrounded himself with smart people who know how to run a modern campaign. Check out his web site. It's really smart. He gets zillions of small donors. From a policy and policy paper standpoint he is not much different from Hillary, really. But he will preside like he has campaigned. He is inspiring, so he gets other people to work for him too. He needs the inspiring speeches because how else can you get others to work, but for inspiring them? His administration will not be top-down management. It will be networked leadership -- the model for now and the furture. He doesn't need all the experience that he is being critiqued for lacking. Truth is, nothing prepares you for being president. The first two years of Clinton the First were a nightmare. Mogadishu, scandals, loss of congress. It took two years for him to get his footing. Clinton is grasping at straws. While she is a good person, probably, and candidate, she is on the wrong side of history. Hers would be a good candidacy even as late as 2004. But now is the time (as it has been said before) to pass the torch to a new generation.
I am in sales. One of the most important lessons I've ever learned is that how you sell is a free sample of how you deliver. Let's compare the two campaigns: Hillary is ego-centric and arrogant. She thought the whole thing would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. She had no plan for afterword. She believed all the press about inevitability. She surrounded herslef with sub-par people, to the extent that they have executed a brilliant campaign, were it only 1996. They missed opportunities in new media. She is poll and consultant-driven. She relies on big donors. Her claim to fame is long policy papers, that she will impliment with the same tactics as her failed healthcare plan. The Clintons (and don't be fooled, they are a twofer) are top-down managers, who will preside as top-down throat jammers in office. That doesn't usually work out well.Obama: his experience begins as a community organizer. He has surrounded himself with smart people who know how to run a modern campaign. Check out his web site. It's really smart. He gets zillions of small donors. From a policy and policy paper standpoint he is not much different from Hillary, really. But he will preside like he has campaigned. He is inspiring, so he gets other people to work for him too. He needs the inspiring speeches because how else can you get others to work, but for inspiring them? His administration will not be top-down management. It will be networked leadership -- the model for now and the furture. He doesn't need all the experience that he is being critiqued for lacking. Truth is, nothing prepares you for being president. The first two years of Clinton the First were a nightmare. Mogadishu, scandals, loss of congress. It took two years for him to get his footing. Clinton is grasping at straws. While she is a good person, probably, and candidate, she is on the wrong side of history. Hers would be a good candidacy even as late as 2004. But now is the time (as it has been said before) to pass the torch to a new generation.