How 2008 Democrats choose a CEO
If 2008 Democratic primary voters ran a business and needed a new CEO…
WANTED: CEO
POSITION: CEO of the world’s largest and most complex business, managing vast resources with enormous potential consequences for the entire world.
QUALIFICATIONS*: At least one of the following:
Very substantial experience with key issues facing our industry and our business and an extensive record of demonstrated judgment on such issues
OR
Very substantial CEO-level experience with demonstrated positive results.
* If you are an African-American with a background that reflects racial and ethnic diversity, are as intelligent and articulate as the white candidates, and have a powerful speaking voice with no “black” accent (which, to many, will make you sound more intelligent and articulate than the white candidates, just as an upper-class British accent would)…no experience necessary.
UNFORTUNATELY NECESSARY NOTE: I think Obama is a very impressive guy and I respect the man. If anyone is inclined to call me a racist due to any of the above, kindly arrange to meet me in person to tell me to my face so I can knock your teeth out. Thank you.
- B Rational's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
So,
why would 2008 presidential election be any different than almost every single one so far, again?
Sic semper tyrannis
Uh....?
I don't get what you are saying.....
Was Ronny Reagan CEO material?
It is the economy, stupid.
You left off an asterisk
* If an immediate member of your family has previously held this position, you may count his experience as your own.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Good point. Thanks for the
Good point. Thanks for the addition.
Re: qualifications
I'm thinking none of the Dem front-runners meet those criteria (nor do any of the Rep's except perhaps McCain). Must be something wrong with our system =P
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
ok, let's downgrade the
ok, let's downgrade the needed/preferred qualifications from "very substantial" experience to just "substantial". Perhaps that shows that most/all of the top contenders clear the bar, while one clearly does not (IMHO). A former state senator with 3 years in the Senate (and not that many years on the planet) doesn't cut it.
Well that's ONE vote against
You could just write a dairy on why you think (____) is unqualified to be President.
The youth vote, or the folks that are going to inherit the consequences of the future actions, seem to be making their own judgements.
It is the economy, stupid.
I think you should have
I think you should have quite while you were ahead. You were absolutely correct when you said "I don't get what you are saying", and you've demonstrated that since.
yes your rationalness
I will 'quite' now.
Can you just briefly enlighten us on the logical formula that creates inspiration :)
It is the economy, stupid.
I'm glad this isn't DKos or Redstate
Surely, there'd be some hardcore profanity by now.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Actually, while I have some
Actually, while I have some strong criticisms of RedState, there is almost no profanity allowed there. As for "hard-core profanity", well, soft-core is just so much classier, and much more acceptable to the girlfriend ; >
Meh
I was just making an observation that we are so much more civil here -- something I really enjoy.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well.....
I started several responses with a much uglier tone ...... and then decided not to push the post button.
It's not worth it to get all worked up over. For today (can't make promises about tomorrow) I am turning the page on that type of argument.
It is the economy, stupid.
I know how you feel
Listen to some Elvis Costello...that'll cheer you up.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's not the experience part
that I question whether Edwards, Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, or Thompson possess. I certainly give them the edge over Obama in this column, although not to the degree that they try to claim -- Clinton, in particular, has really stretched her claims of experience IMO, and Edwards doesn't have much actual legislation to show for his Senate career.
It's the "demonstrated judgment" and "demonstrated positive results" part that is more problematic for me. I'd rather have someone with less experience but more sound judgment than someone who has been around for a long time but still sounds clueless about how to run America. To me, the meritocratic approach would be to reward the guy with the best ideas, rather than the most experience. It's a balance, of course -- you want to see some record of accomplishment, and if Obama seems too green for you then that's just the way it goes. But I don't think he's getting a shot at the nomination because he's black and charismatic, I think he's getting a shot at the nomination because he's shown good judgment, an ability to connect across traditional divides, and he's put forth some ideas for addressing issues of importance to Americans that obviously resonate with voters.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ah, I see. Well, the extent
Ah, I see. Well, the extent to which evidence of good judgment is seen in the experience is obviously very subjective. The experience part is much less so, although people can reasonably disagree on the relative importance of executive experience vs. experience with national issues as a legislator. I mentioned the good judgment part because experience alone is obviously not all a voter would seek in a candidate, but my point was that there should be some minimal level of experience that voters should require of candidates. Is it possible that a voter can conclude that a candidate without this minimum experience has better judgment on some things (or even overall somehow) than those who do have such experience? Sure, but one should be very skeptical that superior judgment can be offered by someone with little experience (even a broken clock is right twice a day, by the way), and also there is more to competence and effectiveness than just some types of good judgment -- particularly the knowledge needed to go beyond choosing the best policy from a set of alternatives, to leading, gaining acceptance, effectively implementing, etc.
As for Obama's race, do you honestly believe that a guy with his level of experience would be (arguably) the front runner for the Democratic party's presidential nomination if he were white??
I don't know
The obvious answer is that if he were white his formative experiences would have been significantly different, and his outlook and perspective would probably be altered as well. Somebody who was white who had an analogous background and skill-set might, I suppose, be less appealing to some voters and/or media and/or establishment "king-makers" -- but then again, he might be more appealing to other sets. It's hard to say, really. I'm having trouble thinking of a white politician to compare to so we could examine outcomes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fair point, but what I'm
Fair point, but what I'm saying is that a white person with Obama's level of experience simply would not have been taken this seriously as a candidate for POTUS, and if some people think that Obama's race and ethnic background and related experiences somehow qualify him to be POTUS despite his lack of executive experience, his relative lack of experience with national issues, and even his youth, then I find that unwise and irresponsible.
Sure, I can agree that
if people are drawn to him just because he's a good story, that's a bad way to choose a President. Of course, people form their opinions in all sorts of questionable ways... all that "Bush would be a nice guy to have a beer with" stuff comes to mind. Not endorsing it, but if it helps Obama the same way it helped Bush... hey, I'll take it ;-)
However, I think that some people (and I would put myself in this group) think that his "race and ethnic background and related experiences" have helped shape his stance on issues, from foreign policy to poverty, and we like where he stands on those issues. It's not that his background qualifies him to be POTUS, it's that it (apparently) has partially helped mold him into a candidate we think would make a good POTUS.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
"Experience" is overrated
Not to be overly pedantic, but I'll consider voting for anyone with the following qualifications:
*Native-born citizen
*At least 35 years old
*Been a resident for 14 years
After that is out of the way, I go to policy objectives, previous experience (including non-governmental service), previous legislation (if any), and then I get into personality and other intangibles.
A good cabinet is all that is necessary to combat inexperience in governmental affairs. Obama seems smart enough to put together a good cabinet to help him navigate foreign policy. I'm not sure if I'm going to vote for him if he's the nominee, but he certainly isn't off the table.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Years on the planet
Oh please. How old was Bill Clinton when he took office? Answer: almost to the day, exactly as old as Barack Obama is right now.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
To borrow your phrase, "oh
To borrow your phrase, "oh please". Please apply some sense here. If I present a set of qualifications that, if completely absent in a candidate across the board, should disqualify that candidate from serious consideration, that doesn't mean that I'm saying that any candidate who lacks any ONE of those qualifications is unqualified. For example, I mentioned two types of experience in my post, and most candidates lack one or the other (Senators lack executive experience, and governors/mayors lack foreign policy experience [other than Richardson], but obviously I'm NOT saying that NO ONE is qualified except Richardson. Please think before writing so I don't have to waste time pointing out the obvious.
I was responding specifically to your comment
No need to get snippy, but if you mention two examples of a lack of experience - number of years in the Senate, and number of years on the planet - and I think one of those is patently absurd, I will point that out.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You're still not seeing your
You're still not seeing your mistake of logic. If I say that A OR B is necessary and that neither is present, it is illogical for you to say rhetorically "Oh come on. What about this other time when B wasn't present?", implying that I was saying that A AND B must be present. As a note, I wasn't saying that simply being old enough would suffice, nor was I saying that, as you apparently misunderstood me to be saying, that youth were a disqualifier IF one of other criteria (other qualifications) were met -- get it now? My snippiness, perhaps unjustified (perhaps not), was/is due to my irritation at getting one of those "Oh come on" statements (translation: "You are being unreasonable") from someone who obviously hasn't taken two seconds to think about what I was really saying.
And by the way, Kennedy was
And by the way, Kennedy was obviously young, but had considerably more experience than Obama.
This is getting a bit parse-heavy
but I can't resist wading in briefly =)
Seems to me Spiritual Lefty was responding to your post to me, in which you mentioned experience and age, rather than your diary, in which you mention, e.g., foreign policy or executive experiece.
I'm sure he'd agree that Kennedy (and Clinton), while young, were also experienced. What I take from that is that age isn't really all that relevant past the minimum, except perhaps at the very upper end.
Anyway, however the initial misunderstanding happened I think we're all on the same page now.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I appreciate your good
I appreciate your good intentions in intervening, but, at risk of getting parse-heavier, but I think your comment reflects a bit of confusion over the use of the word "and". I basically said that Obama not only lacks executive experience and much experience with national issues, he also ("and") lacks much age and, in turn, whatever wisdom one may acquire with age. But in logical terms, the argument means that A OR B is required, NOT that A AND B are required. He lacks A "and" he lacks B, so he does not satisfy the requirement of A OR B.
Understood
I get what you're saying.
Just to be incredibly pedantic I believe that while your interpretation may be the common translation of English into logic, it is not the only possible translation. For example, were I to say "I don't like him, he lacks kindness and wit" then perhaps what is meant is that (a) kindness OR (b) wit is required for me to like somebody, but the alternative interpretation that (a) kindness AND (b) wit are required is also plausible from the sentence structure, it seems to me.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Memories
This all reminds me of several past threads involving GoRight and his groups of people painting blue flowers and such. Ah, memories...
Anyway, I get where you are coming from, and I just have one thing to add. It doesn't matter to my original reply whether you intended to say that age or experience is required, or age and experience is required, because I think both are incorrect. I just don't see age as being particularly relevant at all. (I don't see how a 60-year old inexperienced person is any better than a 50-year old inexperienced person, for example.)
I probably should have just said that in the first place, rather than using the Bill Clinton example, but when I looked up the relevant ages, I was so struck by the actual numbers that I had to use them. Without going into possible leap year effects, I believe that today, Barack Obama is exactly as old as Bill Clinton was on his inauguration day. I just thought that was a neat little coincidence.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Re: "It doesn't matter to my
Re: "It doesn't matter to my original reply whether you intended to say that age or experience is required, or age and experience is required, because I think both are incorrect. I just don't see age as being particularly relevant at all. (I don't see how a 60-year old inexperienced person is any better than a 50-year old inexperienced person, for example.) "
All I said -- and said parenthetically, in the context of contending that his experience level was insufficient -- was that he was relatively young, the implication being that in addition to lacking the most important and most relevant types of work experience for this job, he doesn't even have the benefit of age and the general knowledge/wisdom (related to political issues, organizational behavior, people, life, whatever) that one can acquire with it even if not working in national politics or working as a CEO. So to take your example, generally speaking, and ceteris paribus, most 60 year-olds will have acquired a bit more useful knowledge and wisdom by that age than they had at 50 (useful for being POTUS). But even if you don't accept that premise, you would have to at least accept that it is POSSIBLE (and not at all implausible) for a person to acquire greater knowledge and wisdom over his/her years, and that a young person, again ceteris paribus, has had less opportunity to do so than an older person. So if you have a candidate who has neither type of experience of which I contend that at least one should be required (or if you wish, at least strongly preferred) to be taken seriously, but he has seen a lot in his lifetime and had other types of experiences that have provided somewhat useful insights, skills, etc. for the job of POTUS, then he might be slightly less of a poor choice -- again, only SLIGHTLY less (just to preempt the argument about Obama's unusual life experience largely or completely compensates for his lack of the types of experience I've described) -- than someone who lacks both of my aforementioned two types of experience and also lacks whatever might have come from additional decades of observation, living a life, conducting a career, etc., hence my parenthetical point.
Personally
given the monumental *&^%-ups most CEOs are, I'd rather avoid any allusions of treating the presidency as if it were a "greed obsessed dip sh*t with a golden parachute" (i.e. CEO).
I'd like my president to be competent rather than CEO-esque.
Bush was lauded as the CEO president, if you remember. That turned out about how I expected.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think you're missing my
I think you're missing my point. The profit aspect is extraneous to my analogy. I'm talking about CEO experience that could have been gained in business, non-profit or government, and in any case I'm talking about a type of experience and the skills one acquires with it. Don't read too much into my illustration with a business example, and don't take "CEO" too literally -- a governor is a CEO, for example. As for Bush, my recollection was that his record as a CEO was not exactly impressive, and even if it had been and if you consider him a poor president, there is a fundamental, logical difference between a qualification that is necessary or without which good performance is highly unlikely vs. an argument that such a qualification guarantees such good performance. A guy carrying a 50 pound bag probably can't run a marathon, but that doesn't mean that anyone NOT carrying a 50 pound bag CAN run a marathon.
Curious
what you (and other critics of Obama's lack of experience) think of this
and this 
?
No worries if you don't have time to read it, of course. Just throwing it out there.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I scanned them and I think I
I scanned them and I think I get the essential arguments. I consider those arguments very weak. As for state senate experience, yes, it provides some useful experience and opportunity to develop and prove some relevant skills, but neither of what I consider the Big Two (per my post). As for executive experience, while I don't consider it essential, I think that anyone who considers it irrelevant or not conducive to good performance as president (ceteris paribus) is simply mistaken. And going back to the point of my post, even in these dangerous times (in terms of both national security and enormous long-term economic threats) I can live with a president who needs to learn on the job EITHER how to be an effective executive OR to gain a deeper understanding national issues and potential solutions more deeply, but, particularly on national security, with so much at stake, so much unpredictable, and quite possibly big decisions that will need to be made quickly, I don't think any of us should be willing to live with a president who needs on-the-job training in BOTH areas.
Thanks (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think I will literally
I think I will literally puke if I hear one more Obama supporter say in a "man on the street" TV interview that they support him because he offers "hope" or can "bring the country together" yadda yadda, apparently without a frickin' clue what it is that he is actually offering in terms of policy, let alone why he is qualified for the job. It's like an idiot-fest in which people are just parroting a feel-good, "inspiring" slogan when they really should be saying "Wait, what did he actually say? What are his positions? What are the key elements of his political philosophy? Do his positions and philosophy best fit my own? And can he get these things done? Oh, and by the way, is he qualified to handle the job?"
Let me be clear: I am NOT saying all Obama supporters are idiots or that all or even necessarily most do not have substantive reasons for supporting him, but there seem to be a heck of a lot of folks supporting him with the sophistication of a three year-old or the rationality of someone in the midst of a dreamy acid trip. If these folks were asked to explain their support for Obama without using the words "hope" or "inspiring" or using a phrase like "bringing our nation together", well, following a frozen, deer-in-headlights pause, they would begin to shake, then weep, then collapse. Of course, I hope someone would be there when they woke up to offer them a lollipop and a comforting hug.
To use your CEO analogy
One function of a good CEO is to inspire. To get people motivated. To speak in glowing phrases of the objectives and end goals of whatever the undertaking is. At the annual employee meeting, you want the CEO to exude charm, optimism, confidence, etc. The CEO may not have a clue (and usually does not, btw) as to exactly how these objectives will be accomplished, but that's not really his job either.
I get what you're saying about the other CEO attributes, but many of those can indeed be brought in with good staff. But the inspirational ability has to be in the man's repertoire.
The man-on-the-street is the equivalent of the low level employees at the meeting. And that's not a bad thing.
I know I'm leaving other stuff out, but in a nutshell, I tend to agree with you that he's probably not as experienced as one might like, and I probably disagree with you as to the actual import of that fact. Given the field we're choosing from, he's not a horrible choice. I'd take him over Rudy any day.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Re: "One function of a good
Re: "One function of a good CEO is to inspire. To get people motivated."
Yes, that's ONE function of a good CEO. It is certainly not the ONLY key function, nor even the most important function, nor something that qualifies one to be a CEO if he lacks experience needed to be likely to perform well overall. The CEO has to set strategic direction, communicate that direction, and acquire and deploy resources (human and otherwise), at the top level, to effectively implement. He also needs to be able to make wise, timely decisions as conditions change, including as crises arise. The ability to inspire is definitely a big plus, but a motivational speaker does not a CEO make.
Re: "The CEO may not have a clue (and usually does not, btw) as to exactly how these objectives will be accomplished, but that's not really his job either."
Well, where you find such CEOs, short that stock. Granted, it depends what you mean by "exactly". If you're referring to lower levels of implementation, fine. But it would take the ultimate George Costanza to somehow keep a job as a CEO if he didn't have a clue as to how to overall objectives of the company will be achieved.
Exactly
means exactly. I used the term deliberately, in an apparently ineffectual attempt to forestall this type of response ;}
To put it another way: there is a huge gap in abstraction and complexity between an executive summary and a detailed project plan.
As there should be. It's not the CEO's job to know exactly how to accomplish something. That's what the other 5000 people in the organization are for.
"One of" was also used deliberately ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Well, you got that response
Well, you got that response because if you meant "exactly" in the sense of the details of lower-level implementation, your point doesn't seem particularly relevant or meaningful. I mean, what's your point? I say the guy has no experience akin to a CEO of a large company or other organization (or anything even close), and you say that such experience is unnecessary, even if he also lacks deep experience with key national issues (which could compensate for lack of executive experience), because...why??? Because a CEO doesn't know exactly how a lower-level manager is going to implement the strategy he decides upon?? Because, as long as the CEO can "inspire", he may be qualified without any relevant experience and related skills/knowledge/insights, because "good staff" can do the rest of a CEO's job for him (the CEO functions I listed in my previous reply to you)? Or perhaps you think those CEO functions I listed don't need to be performed by anyone at the top, but instead all that "good staff" could just decide everything independently up and down and all across the organization? Perhaps there are some connecting dots that I'm missing, but if so, I'll need you to spell it out for me if I'm to see a sensible argument in what you're saying.
Forgive me, Purple, if I'm
Forgive me, Purple, if I'm wrong about this, but I kinda get the impression that you don't have any sense of what a CEO does, and perhaps you think that what you see at those employee meetings you mentioned is pretty much all there is to it. Which reminds me -- as most things do -- of an episode of the Simpsons. A robot was attacking the family and Homer smashed it. Pointing to all the then visible the wires and other parts, Homer said to Marge, "See all that stuff inside Homer? That's why YOUR robot didn't work."
It's cool
I can see that. You're reading far more into what I wrote than I intended. I just don't have the time right now for the paragraphs you need ;} Believe me, I have more experience with CEOs than I'd like; I spent twenty years in strategic project management in a Fortune 100. I am intimately familiar with with the processes involved in getting from the objective to the actual.
I was really only trying to speak to the point you raised in that one comment -- your frustration with the man on the street. I did not see you giving appropriate weight to that "inspirational" aspect of your CEO requirements. Sure it's not the only requirement, but it is a key one that must be possessed by the individual (i.e. cannot be farmed out), and it is the one that is most naturally visible to the man on the street.
Thus my employee analogy. The man-on-the-street / mail clerk doesn't have a clue as to the other skills necessary (or even present) in a CEO, and if he did he would not know how to value those skills because he has no frame of reference for that----but he will respond to the charisma.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
ok, but my point is that the
ok, but my point is that the man on the street should have enough common sense to know that the ability to inspire is not nearly enough to qualify one well for this job.
The man on the street
should also be able to find Iraq on a map. Or name the VP. Or know that astrology is bogus.
I hear you. But many of your fellow men are not-so-bright when it comes to this stuff.
Which is why we are not a pure democracy.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Our founding fathers
they thought of everything, didn't they.
Their vision as to what problems might arise, and offering a certain degree of checks and balances is nothing short of stunning!
It is the economy, stupid.
"The man on the street
"The man on the street should also be able to find Iraq on a map"
There's a perfectly good explanation for that!
Let me get you a rag
so you can clean off your shoes. I hope you aren't feeling better any time soon :)
It is the economy, stupid.
darn, now I'll need another
darn, now I'll need another one of those rags.
Try this
View with an open mind
If you really are objective, this will answer some of your questions.
It is the economy, stupid.
Are you still cynical
after listening to that interview rationally and objectively?
It is the economy, stupid.
LOL -- No, I'm not "still
LOL -- No, I'm not "still cynical" nor do I "still beat my wife". Perhaps you meant to say "skeptical" (of Obama's qualifications) or something along those lines.
So
do you still beat your wife? .......kidding......
cynical, skeptical same difference :)
It is the economy, stupid.
well, when it comes to
well, when it comes to spousal battery, I'm pro-choice.
JUST KIDDING, EVERYONE (apologies if anyone was offended).
I was
No right to spousal battery is in the Constitution, so it's clearly a state issue.
:-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
lol. No further comment from
lol. No further comment from me on this. I'm gonna quit while I'm behind.
Some more qualifications
1) The candidate must actually share the goals of the members of the board.
2) The candidate must fill a symbolic role to convince the board, the shareholders, and the consumers that they actually like the company.
The state is quite different from any other corporation.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
As I've mentioned
As I've mentioned previously, don't get caught up in the business illustration. Not the point. CEO experience in business, government and/or non-profit would all be relevant qualifications. Would I want a president who was a great CEO other than completely lacking the qualifications/skills you mentioned? No, but that doesn't mean the experience I'm talking about shouldn't be a requirement.
criteria, not requirements
Experience is one factor among many that should be considered. I'd prefer to have a president who was well intentioned but incompetent rather than a president who was effective and evil.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
No, requirements. This may
No, requirements. This may sound unreasonable to you, but I want a president who has experience AND is not evil. I guess I'm just a real tough customer. Apparently you think that's too much to ask from any one candidate.