Many Reasons Why Hillary Would be Bad President
- 2 February 2007 by Author 0 Comments
Many Reasons Why Hillary Would be Bad President
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 2/02/07
The American electioneering system leaves a great deal to be desired. On the heels of the mid-term elections in November, one can’t even turn on a television or read a newspaper without being bombarded with stories regarding the 2008 Presidential campaign. Frankly, I much prefer the British system: the Prime Minister declares an election, and within a couple of months, it happens. Now that’s the way to run an election season!
It makes absolutely no logical sense to engage in the hypothetical debates of who’s going to win in ’08. At this point, we don’t even know for sure who’s running, other than half of the U.S. Senators, with a governor or two thrown in for good measure.
What we do know, however, is that New York Senator Hillary Clinton is running. In some political circles, the Senator’s announcement last week was heralded as nothing short of the second coming of Christ, while others seem to react as if the number “666” was emblazoned somewhere in her scalp. Somewhere in between the extremes, as usual, we can find the true assessment of her as a potential Commander In Chief.
She communicates well, is articulate, but would have to be appraised as being considerably short of the “smartest woman in the world” assessment. But more than that, it is helpful to look at what someone has accomplished in their life to indicate that one has the competency to serve in that most important position. With Mrs. Clinton, we find a veritable dearth of accomplishments. In six years as a Senator and eight years as First Lady, she hasn’t accomplished anything substantive.
Organization is certainly not one of her strengths, as those Rose Law Firm records were so elusive for so long before they just happened to show up on a table in the White House. Heaven forbid National Intelligence Estimates would be treated so cavalierly by her if elected.
She apparently is good as a commodities trader, for anyone who can turn $10,000 into $100,000 in a few weeks is pretty darn good. Perhaps she would be more competent as a trader for the New York Mercantile Exchange.
What we do know of her management style, leadership, and insights into the operation of government is not very encouraging. Bradford DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, provides us a glimpse. Dr. DeLong served on the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993 that Senator Clinton led.
A few years ago, Dr. DeLong said, “My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.”
That’s hardly a ringing endorsement from someone who has worked closely with her, and one that should bear great weight in determining her ability to lead the country.
While working on my Master’s program, I remember learning about the Peter Principle which, in it’s abbreviated version, states that everyone in a hierarchy rises to the level of their incompetence. The principle has applicability here in that it would appear that the Senator has already risen to the level of her incompetence, and hence should not be elevated any further.
Another reason to not elect her as president is that she engages in revisionist history, not a good trait for the leader of the free world. Last week in Iowa, the Senator proclaimed, “I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he (Bush) took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.”
This is in direct contradiction with what she said in 2003 when explaining her vote on the Iraq invasion. She said, “I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can’t based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.”
Those who can’t stand by their decisions over time without attempting to rewrite history simply don’t manifest the character requisite for the Presidency. The Senator should, as Dr. DeLong declared, be kept as far from the White House as possible.
Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.