Over 800 Google Workers Demand the Company Cut Ties With ICE
UNL Student Government Passes SJP-Backed Israel Divestment Resolution
AOC Mourns the Loss of ’Our Media,’ More Layoffs Across the Industry (and...
The Left Just Doesn't Understand Why WaPo Is Failing
16 Years and $16 Billion Later the First Railhead Goes Down for CA's...
New Musical Remakes Anne Frank As a Genderqueer Hip-Hop Star
Toledo Man Indicted for Threatening to Kill Vice President JD Vance During Ohio...
Fort Lauderdale Financial Advisor Sentenced to 20 Years for $94M International Ponzi Schem...
FCC Is Reportedly Investigating The View
Illegal Immigrant Allegedly Used Stolen Identity to Vote and Collect $400K in Federal...
$26 Billion Gone: Stellantis Joins Automakers Retreating From EVs
House Oversight Chair: Clintons Don’t Get Special Treatment in Epstein Probe
Utah Man Sentenced for Stealing Funds Meant to Aid Ukrainian First Responders
Ex-Bank Employee Pleads Guilty to Laundering $8M for Overseas Criminal Organization
State Department Orders Evacuation of US Citizens in Iran As Possibility of Military...
Tipsheet

Bad Campaign = Bad Leader?



Barack Obama's
campaign seems to be attempting to advance the notion that Hillary Clinton's poorly-run campaign might say something about her competency as a leader.
Advertisement


This idea has been seized-upon by the chattering classes.  Just yesterday, Politico's Jim Vandehei and David Paul Kuhn noted that,

In twin columns in Tuesday’s Washington Post, left-of-center columnists Peter Beinart and E.J. Dionne Jr. condemned Clinton’s overall management of the campaign and inability to build a durable message and infrastructure. It’s a common theme in Democratic circles these days.
... Although I happen to agree that a well-run campaign says something about how a leader may govern -- and that a poorly-run campaign might also be a harbinger of things to come -- it is interesting to note that many of these same liberals (who praise Obama's campaign today) used to deride Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for running very good campaigns. 

As you may recall, many in the MSM used to imply that the "superficial" qualities that make for a good campaigner were perhaps the exact opposite qualities you would look for in a leader.

I do find it hypocritical that Obama is now being praised for running a good campaign, while Reagan and Bush were portrayed as being merely masters of "hype" and "showmanship."  There campaigns were often portrayed as merely a method to manipulate the public.  Clearly, there is a double-standard.
Advertisement


As I've written before, if we truly want to elect our next president based on the campaign they've run, John McCain should easily win.  Here's why:

Hillary would disqualified because her campaign has largely consisted of a series of missteps (though I do give her credit for never giving up).  Obama's campaign has been well-run, but for this same reason, he hasn't demonstrated an ability to make come-back. 

John McCain is the only candidate who has demonstrated the ability to correct mistakes, and turn-around bad situations that once seemed hopeless.  This seems like good training for the presidency.  In the real world, where things will always go wrong, the ability to identify a problem, and then fix it, is one of the most valuable attributes a leader could possess.   

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement