Hillary values loyalty over competence. Sound familiar?

It is sometimes said by Democrats who prefer Clinton to Obama -- or who simply have their doubts about Obama, on account of his relative inexperience -- that to elect him president would be to repeat the same mistake we made by electing an inexperienced neophyte named George W. Bush in 2000. Heck, I once voiced this concern, and although I think Obama has a lot of other things going for him, it's still something I worry about a bit.

I would argue, however, that the real history-repeating-itself danger would be in electing Hillary, in light of her managerial skills (or lack thereof) and her veritably Bush-like views on management, competence and loyalty:

[I]nterviews with campaign aides, associates and friends suggest that Mrs. Clinton, at least until February, was a detached manager. Juggling the demands of being a candidate, she paid little attention to detail, delegated decisions large and small and deferred to advisers on critical questions. Mrs. Clinton accepted or seemed unaware of the intense factionalism and feuding that often paralyzed her campaign and that prevented her aides from reaching consensus on basic questions like what states to fight in and how to go after Mr. Obama, of Illinois.

Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.

I've read similar observations about Hillary numerous times elsewhere, and they really concern me. Do we really want another "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" sort of president? I think not.

Comments

[Trisha]

Not only that, but I hear democrats complain that they want change all the time. How would electing Hilary be change? It would only further the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton monarchy. It could also presumably lead to a longer Clinton ruling (16 years of Clinton rule vs 12 years of Bush rule). Considering the number one thing I hear dems complain about is the "Bush Monarchy," would they not be contributing to the same thing if they (God forbid) elect her?

Trisha,

Democrats are full of shit.

[David K.]

Once again a brilliant piece of logically sound argument from the "anonymous" commentors of this blog.