To Delegate, or Not To Delegate, That is the Question

In 1959, John F. Kennedy debated Richard M. Nixon on the relatively new "space age" technology of television. That brought a change to the way elections were conducted. Sadly, Senator Kennedy, young, charismatic and quite photogenic, made mincemeat of the man who would be elected President in 1968, a tumultuous year to say the best. The thing that Presidents Kennedy and Nixon had in common was that they worked hard and were ever-aware of exactly what was going on around them. An inspection of the paper and recorded legacy left by each great man will reveal an incredible ability to be on top of many issues at the same time.

Somewhere a while ago I read that scientific research had proven time and time again that men think in a linear way; one item at a time. The same science says that if one is looking for a multi-tasker, the sex of choice is female. Well, Hillary Clinton has proven to be an exception to the rule. In fact, the relatively liberal New York Times in a piece called "Sniping by Aides Hurts Clinton's Image As Manager," dated today, quotes Professor James A. Thurber, an expert on presidential campaigning, as saying that she suffers from the same deficits in management skills as many Senators on their first Presidential run; the complexity of the management of a Presidential campaign is a tremendous thing to handle, no matter how "inside" Washington may be. I find this ironic in light of the fact that early arguments by the Clinton campaign cited Senator Obama's "lack of experience" as another reason to vote for Senator Clinton.

Times reporters Adam Nagourney, Patrick Healy and Kate Zernike concede that recently Senator Clinton's been more personally involved in her campaign. Nonetheless they had this to say about the Clinton machine:

Still, interviews 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.

I'll repeat the key phrase hereinabove: "She paid little attention to detail." There's an old management adage: "take good care of the big things and the little things will take care of themselves." That works fine when managing a department, a division, a brand. But take a look at the most successful CEOs and you'll find someone who, while eschewing micromanagement, can pull aside, let's say, a division manager, and ask them a question about a critical piece of data. The division manager must refer to a subordinate, a file, or at least a PDA to find the answer. The CEO knows the answer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the precarious position of having to sell herself to the American people. A run for the Presidency can arguably called the toughest job interview in the world. Believe me, would that I were even qualified, I would not want to be in her shoes (nor Senator McCain's nor Senator Obama's) for all the riches in the world. In fact, the easiest Presidential win in recent history, ostensibly, was that of Jimmy Carter over any Republican after the mess Nixon had made for the party prior to his resignation. The Democrat party could've offered up a Democrat who was Superintendent of Schools in a town of 2,000 persons and that person would have been elected — in 1976.
 

It Ain't Easy At The Top

It's never nice when a President goes down in history for making mistakes. Heck, there are plenty of people who'd argue that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt committed one of the more heinous violations of the letter and intent of The U.S. Constitution by setting up Social Security. Nixon resigned; an incredible loss of face for The United States on a global level. If, however, he'd have been impeached the cost to the nation's morale and the country's leadership role on an international level would have been incalculable. President Clinton defiled the office of the President of the United States in a way it had not been defiled before (granted, he didn't have the fierce loyalty surrounding him that Jack Kennedy did when he enjoyed his trysts with Marilyn Monroe). Does that say something about Clinton's moral fiber, something about his inability to surround himself with loyalists and prevent a leak, or does it merely reflect the post-Watergate tendency of Presidential servants to fail at being patriotic protectors of the President (and, when the President trips up, the nation's image)?

Ronald Reagan said that George Schultz told him just after Reagan was nominated, "Mr. President, I'll be with you through thick." The newly-inaugurated Reagan queried "what about thin?" Schultz replied, "welcome to Washington, sir." Reagan took that advice wisely and exploited it, protecting himself during the Iran-Contra hearings with the now-famous ""I don't recall.""

The most troubling part of that is a serious matter. He may have been telling the truth; there are those conspiracy theorists who say that the President's Alzheimer's disease was affecting him as early as that time. If it was, the nation knew nothing of it at the time. One can only think of what Nancy must've been thinking might happen. But then, I never liked Nancy Reagan that much at all.

Looking back at all of these Presidential transgressions, there is nothing that even remotely approaches the comedy of errors we call the administration of President Bush. Now, he indeed was faced with the first act of war committed on the continental United States in the history of this great country. He hadn't the luxury of a single, tangible enemy state that President Truman did; therefore punishment could not be swiftly and accurately meted out. But what else can I say? I could go on and on and on but I'll end my argument for Bush being at the bottom of the Presidential barrel with two words: "Iraq" and "Deficit."

President George W. Bush paid little attention to detail. In fact, sadly, he paid little attention to anything of import. His feeble last-ditch efforts to go down in history as a great President are ridiculous. It epitomizes everything that's shady, slimy and bad about Bush's brand of Republicanism that he's passing out "incentive checks" which will "revitalize the economy." Sure, throw money at something and it'll just be okay. But we can't blame him; his dad bailed him out in his youth when he got nabbed for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The message he got so many years ago from his male role model is "money talks." Why not try it now; with the taxpayers' money?
 

Grass Roots

The Obama campaign has renewed the faith of many Americans in the inherent good of our system of elections. Now, it doesn't matter who wins the election. The involvement of each and every American in government will be necessary. We can model that on the way Senator Obama is running his campaign; getting people of all political beliefs and walks of life to talk to one another, come up with ideas. If necessary, agree to disagree.

This nation is currently descending the first few feet of a miles-deep economic chasm. The most optimistic economic minds are telling anyone who'll listen that it's going to be at least the 2nd Quarter of 2009 before we begin to enjoy anything remotely resembling confidence in the economy. The President isn't the only one who can rectify this situation. It is the responsibility of every citizen of this country to help to raise the consciousness of their representatives on the Federal and State levels. This means writing letters, sending emails (although letters are more unwieldy and demonstrate a more significant amount of effort and expense; they're also harder to ignore). All one need write is a phrase given to us by the character Howard Beale in the memorable film Network:

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Labour/Eight-Hours Day
Different countries probably have different meanings for this holiday. I know in Australia it's called Labour Day in some states and Eight-Hours Day in others, but the idea is basically the same: eight hours work, eight hours rest, eight hours play. "Mummy, does that mean if I wake up at seven, I get to stay up till eleven tonight?" Kids are the only exception, really. But you get the drift. Anyway, I'd like the idea better if it was a universal date, rather than spread out over several months. In Australia, half the country celebrates it in March, others in October. (Victorians get it every second Monday in March.) Get a bit of consistency going here.

I worked today. Big fucking whoop.

On the plus side, however, I get to see my girlfriend earlier than usual this week, and I got paid time and a half for my work today.

On the other hand, this weekend in my home town there is a

FESTIVAL

to celebrate rock 'n' roll. Much disrespect from the waverider.

Thank you for sitting through this drivel. Have a marshmallow.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.