Today's newest Obama thread. Or -- why "experience" is not so important

[Warren Bone]

It's still early on this warm and muggy Saturday morning. Some might call it "sultry" or humid.

But I'm inside the nice cool house -- quite comfortable. Me, my wife and my three dogs.

Now that the scene is set I'll tell you what's on my mind (not that setting the scene has anything to do with Obama being our next president).

My point is that we sometimes misunderstand what is important when looking at a person seeking (or holding) a position of management, of leadership, of power. Do you think it is important for me to "set the scene" in order for me to tell you about Obama?

Of course not.

Do you think it's important that a president of the United States have prior military experience in order to be Commander-in-Chief? What about the need for experience in the food and drug industry since the president also oversees the FDA? What about experience as a farmer or rancher? Can a president make wise choices about agriculture if he hasn't been a farmer?

Now you begin to understand.

It's well known in management circles that a good manager/leader is very likely to be best suited for his/her job when they in fact have no experience in the area they manage. What is important is the leadership skills of the person; and their ability to get the job done with the people that are responsible for carrying out the plan.

John McCain wants us to think that a person needs military experience in order to be a good Commander-in-Chief/President. That's not true and is usually just the opposite: our country is not run by military people. The civilian lawmakers and the president call those shots.

No...having specialized experience is not needed for the President; it's impossible as a matter of fact. No one could be expected to have experience in all the many areas and services of the federal government.

The most important trait of a manager, leader, president is the ability to get the job done by those who work under him/her. And Barack Obama has that trait.

warren.
PS...Have a nice Saturday!

 

[BigFootsCousin]

No Warren, yer REALLY wrong this time buddy......

The *Ultimate* qualifications to become President would be someone who can please EVERYONE and still take control and get done what he thinks needs getting done...........

My vote: A used car salesman.

BFC

 

[Jackpine Savage]

The most important trait of a manager, leader, president is the ability to get the job done by those who work under him/her. And Barack Obama has that trait.

Show us some examples.

 

[Oilpatch Hand]

The most important trait of a manager, leader, president is the ability to get the job done by those who work under him/her. And Barack Obama has that trait.

Can you cite an example? In the absence thereof, I find your assessment puzzling.

I'm hard pressed to find any significant public policy achievement by Obama himself, much less by "those who work under him/her." (Not counting the process of hanging around under the public eaves, garnering name recognition with which to further his political career, of course. He's managed that, although it's hardly a meaningful mark on one's resume'.)

In terms of public policy achievements, obviously, Obama is indistinguishable from one of the desks in the Senate chamber. In fact, it's absolutely fair to say that Obama's political career is characterized more the absolute absence of meaningful achievement than the presence of same.

I figure you have to be yankin' us here, WB.

 

[Laurane]

Lack of time spent in politics......

is less time to learn to LIE meaningfully........but he is trying

and less time to practice with the Teleprompter for all his speeches.......off the cuff remarks are bland/unremarkable and make him seem brainless, and not completely educated about things he spouts. Everyone knows (even Canadians) that there are not 57 States

 

[fruit loop]

Military experience is no guarantee of excellence. Ulysses Grant is a perfect example, as are both Bushes.

McCain is trying to run on his war record. I'm not impressed.

 

[buff]

McCain is trying to run on his war record. I'm not impressed.

isn't that the same as what Kerry did?

 

[gelatinous]

Obama doesn't have the experience of a well paid CEO. He's a junior senator with hardly any time in the trenches. You're probably right that he is a good manager. But so are many people in life.

 

[Straycat]

It's well known in management circles that a good manager/leader is very likely to be best suited for his/her job when they in fact have no experience in the area they manage. What is important is the leadership skills of the person; and their ability to get the job done with the people that are responsible for carrying out the plan.

Yeah, except no. This is just one of the more recent management mantras used to try to justify inexperienced managers.

You can't "lead" people in a task satisfactorily if you don't understand what they're doing or how they do it. All you can do is make vague objectives and unrealistic commitments. That's not "leading." Honestly, while the managers are patting themselves on the backs over their leadership skills, the people who work under them have been noticing that the more "management training" someone has, the more detrimental they become to actually getting the job done.

That said, all we have to judge Obama on is what we've seen of him so far. And what I've seen so far has left me singularly UNimpressed. The more I hear him speak, the more concerns I have.

So... No. I think I'll go with the candidate who has more experience and isn't all fired up to remake the entire world in his own image.

 

[cooter]

well plus one for stray cat

This is just one of the more recent management mantras used to try to justify inexperienced managers.

seems the older you get, the more you see of this,

I get a laugh out of seeing and hearing about some of the insane demands from managers who have no idea of what it takes to get physical things moved and done,and then you watch good people quit from getting tired of the stupidity

 

[Warandra]

Yeah, except no. This is just one of the more recent management mantras used to try to justify inexperienced managers.

You can't "lead" people in a task satisfactorily if you don't understand what they're doing or how they do it. All you can do is make vague objectives and unrealistic commitments. That's not "leading." Honestly, while the managers are patting themselves on the backs over their leadership skills, the people who work under them have been noticing that the more "management training" someone has, the more detrimental they become to actually getting the job done.

That said, all we have to judge Obama on is what we've seen of him so far. And what I've seen so far has left me singularly UNimpressed. The more I hear him speak, the more concerns I have.

So... No. I think I'll go with the candidate who has more experience and isn't all fired up to remake the entire world in his own image.

So, you're impressed by a soldier (McWar) who not only knows how to get caught by the enemy, but also knows how to THRIVE while imprisoned (supplying the North Vietnamese with propaganda tapes)? Good for you.

Obama has managed to raise all of his funding by getting relatively small donations, has won a candidacy for president with a major party though he is African-American and has found ways to inspire a network of campaign volunteers accross this nation who will help him win the elction.

I, too, will support Obama in his quest to bring sanity into a world of nonsense.

 

[trek2001]

No to Obama

First Let me say that I support neither candidate. I cannot support Obama. His choices has shown his lack of judgement. He has less than 200 working days in the Senate, no experience in managing big business, has poor choices in his personal life (Wright, Resko, etc).

He has made mistakes when speaking (yes I am a bitter person clinging to my guns and religion). I do not want a president who makes gaffs (57 states and the like).

McCain is no better. I will continue to hope for a viable 3rd party candidate.

 

[Monty]

So, you're impressed by a soldier (McWar) who not only knows how to get caught by the enemy, but also knows how to THRIVE while imprisoned (supplying the North Vietnamese with propaganda tapes)? Good for you.

Obama has managed to raise all of his funding by getting relatively small donations, has won a candidacy for president with a major party though he is African-American and has found ways to inspire a network of campaign volunteers accross this nation who will help him win the elction.

I, too, will support Obama in his quest to bring sanity into a world of nonsense.

Got proof for either of these statements?

Monty

 

[Conrad Nimikos]

LOL! Monty, Monty, Monty! Warandra has no proof for any of her statements. She doesn't need proof! All she has to do is feel what other libs tell her to feel and she is happy; even blissful.

 

[Warandra]

Actually, I have very detailed answers for all of these silly questions. And, when I feel the time is right, I'll give you those answers. In the meanwhile, have fun with the Delusions.

 

[FarmerJohn]

President George W. Bush was supposed to be the first MBA (master of business administration) president. W hired an experienced team, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. and still managed to screw up mightily. Many Americans are in the mood for somebody who seems to have has a different set of values an instinct for making the right moves: focusing more on opportunities than making or imagining enemies.

As diplomat Richard Holbrooke is reported to have said:

I don't know if John has become a neocon, but he sure has surrounded himself with them.

What Obama has over McCain is negotiation rather than bellicosity, reasoning rather than holding on to a grudge, agility and flexibility vs. brittle inflexibility, and not least important, a smooth-running, small-doner-financed campaign compared to McCain's frequent shakeups.

In sympathy with John McCain, he did end up in a NV prison for years because of his service (and bad luck). You have to respect that (the service, I mean.) Unfortunately, he may still be suffering from the residue of the awful Carl Rove-style attacks of the '00 campaign in which it was suggested that McCain crashed five planes, was a traitor, caused the disastrous fire on the USS Forrestal (CV-59), had a black child, ditched his first wife and whose second and current wife stole narcotics for her own use, etc. Some of these accusations are or may be technically true but were certainly couched in the nastiest possible way by those working for George W. Bush and now haunt his designated Republican successor.

FJ

 

[Warandra]

President George W. Bush was supposed to be the first MBA (master of business administration) president. W hired an experienced team, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. and still managed to screw up mightily. Many Americans are in the mood for somebody who seems to have has a different set of values an instinct for making the right moves: focusing more on opportunities than making or imagining enemies.

As diplomat Richard Holbrooke is reported to have said:



What Obama has over McCain is negotiation rather than bellicosity, reasoning rather than holding on to a grudge, agility and flexibility vs. brittle inflexibility, and not least important, a smooth-running, small-doner-financed campaign compared to McCain's frequent shakeups.

In sympathy with John McCain, he did end up in a NV prison for years because of his service (and bad luck). You have to respect that (the service, I mean.) Unfortunately, he may still be suffering from the residue of the awful Carl Rove-style attacks of the '00 campaign in which it was suggested that McCain crashed five planes, was a traitor, caused the disastrous fire on the USS Forrestal (CV-59), had a black child, ditched his first wife and whose second and current wife stole narcotics for her own use, etc. Some of these accusations are or may be technically true but were certainly couched in the nastiest possible way by those working for George W. Bush and now haunt his designated Republican successor.

FJ

And, those same stories will come back to haunt McCain by November (not from the Obama camp, itself, but from those who are anti-McCain). Here's what this election is all about: The same old stuff (where the rich get richer and the rest get screwed) VS a chance for a new direction (where everyone benefits).

 

[Intergator]

The directions to DU is 1st turn to the left.....

 

[Jackpine Savage]

Lets see, McCaine diversions, Bush diversions, but I still don't see any examples of Obama leadership or accomplishments. Only that he suckered a bunch of people into giving him money. I sometimes wonder who is behind him, is he a Daley puppet?

 

[Warandra]

The directions to DU is 1st turn to the left.....

This nation's government has been so far to the Right for so long that it can't go anywhere else except to the Left. DUH!

 

[Intergator]

This nation's government has been so far to the Right for so long that it can't go anywhere else except to the Left. DUH!

Hmmmm. No. I don't think that's gonna work

 

[Monty]

Actually, I have very detailed answers for all of these silly questions. And, when I feel the time is right, I'll give you those answers. In the meanwhile, have fun with the Delusions.

So when is asking for detail a silly question?

When the time is right? I think you are just wasting our time.

Everyone benefits huh? Sounds like you are willing to trade capitalist elite for socialist elite, be careful what you wish for.

Monty

 

[Warandra]

The questions are silly because everyone who does a google search can find the answers.

 

[Intergator]

You're hitting our something with your nothing............

 

[Monty]

The questions are silly because everyone who does a google search can find the answers.

That's what I thought, you've got less than Obama has qualifications.

O=zero

Monty

 

[Straycat]

So, you're impressed by a soldier (McWar) who not only knows how to get caught by the enemy, but also knows how to THRIVE while imprisoned (supplying the North Vietnamese with propaganda tapes)? Good for you.

Where precisely did I say I supported McCain? Better watch those assumptions, you know where that can lead....

 

[Wardogs]

Friday, July 25, 2008
McCain speech vs. Obama speech

While Obama was telling the German crowd (lured by the free rock concert, free beer and free bratwurst) how much America sucks and how much he is sorry for what American Military has been doing, McCain delivered the story that will make you feel yourself a proud compatriot of the Medal of Honor winner US Army Sgt. Roy Benavidez.

Watch and be amazed:
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2008/07/mccain-speech-vs-obama-speech.html

As an aside, this sort of coverage is why the U.S. Armed Forces choose to watch Fox News around the world, Barack.

As for deducing what Sen. Obama really thinks about our military?

Why did Barack Obama cancel his visit to see wounded U.S. soldiers yesterday at Landstuhl Medical Center in Ramstein, Germany?

According to the Politico and the Chicago Sun-Times, the Obama campaign is blaming the military, claiming that the Obama campaign was told the visit "would look too political."

But according to MSNBC, Obama and his Senate staff could have visited wounded troops; he simply couldn't bring along his campaign staff and the media.

The campaign's response? They withdrew the request to visit the troops. The official said "We didn't know why" the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. "He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him."

If he can't use them as props, it seems Barack Obama has little use
for the military. Come to think if it, that is roughly how they factor
into his feckless foreign policy plans as well.

As if this whole trip wasn't political.

Obama, to his credit, did have time to thank some of the people protecting him.

Another thought...
How in the hell do you give a speech about the fall of the Berlin Wall ... and not even mention Ronald Reagan?

James Linville compiled a list of 10 questions while the Dalai 'Bama was flip flopping his way around the globe.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/Hard+Questions+Iraq+Afgh

Perhaps some of our erstwhile Obamatrons here can answer them. It's a given that he won't...

1. Why does Senator Obama advocate a surge of troops in Afghanistan though he considers a surge of troops in Iraq to have been a mistake?
2. Why is a stable Afghanistan crucial to US interests while a stable Iraq is not?
3. How long does Senator Obama expect to keep troops in Afghanistan?
4. Why is an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan manageable while the same in Iraq is not?
5. How much does Senator Obama expect to spend rebuilding Afghanistan?
6. Why is rebuilding Afghanistan affordable while rebuilding Iraq is not?
7. Why does Senator Obama consider the ethno-sectarian issues in Iraq to be nearly intractable while in Afghanistan they are something we can overcome?
8. If leaving Iraq will make the Iraqi government behave more responsibly, how will an increased presence in Afghanistan affect the Afghan government?
9. Why does Senator Obama advocate a "surge in diplomacy" and multilateralism in Iraq while simultaneously advocating unilateral action in the Pakistani tribal areas?
10. How large of a "residual force" will be left in Iraq and for how long?

He's now sounding like he is way to the right of McCain and Bush both.

Change you can believe in...
wardogs

 

[Wardogs]

You can always count on "the Stache" to put things in perspective....
wardogs

Bolton: Obama Is On A Different Planet

From the sagacious John Bolton, via the op-ed page of the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bolton26-2008jul26,0,4923423.story

One world? Obama’s on a different planet
The senator's Berlin speech was radical and naive.
By John R. Bolton
July 26, 2008

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it “allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer.”

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

These troubling comments were not widely reported in the generally adulatory media coverage given the speech, but they nonetheless deserve intense scrutiny. It remains to be seen whether these glimpses into Obama’s thinking will have any impact on the presidential campaign, but clearly they were not casual remarks. This speech, intended to generate the enormous publicity it in fact received, reflects his campaign’s carefully calibrated political thinking. Accordingly, there should be no evading the implications of his statements. Consider just the following two examples.

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, “The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.” Having earlier proclaimed himself “a fellow citizen of the world” with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved “that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — “eastern politics,” a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

But there are larger implications to Obama’s rediscovery of the “one world” concept, first announced in the U.S. by Wendell Willkie, the failed Republican 1940 presidential nominee, and subsequently buried by the Cold War’s realities.

The successes Obama refers to in his speech — the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism — were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by “one-worldism.” Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: “The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn’t see all these “walls” as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side — our side — defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively “tearing down walls” with our adversaries.

Throughout the Berlin speech, there were numerous policy pronouncements, all of them hazy and nonspecific, none of them new or different than what Obama has already said during the long American campaign. But the Berlin framework in which he wrapped these ideas for the first time is truly radical for a prospective American president. That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a “united” world.

The best we can hope for is that Obama’s rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option.”

A great analysis of the speech and the man giving it.

In a sane world Mr. Bolton would be a leading candidate for the Presidency, instead of the ignorant, smug and radical anointed one.

 

[Jackpine Savage]

Almost 24 hours and still no list of accomplishments or examples of leadership

 

[Dozdoats]

 

[dstraito]

Definite NO to Obama

Again, why would someone vote for Obama?

Leadership? Bullsh*t.

What accomplishments can be named for his short stay in Congress?

Please, someone tell me.

Besides the fact that he is the most liberal voting member of ALL of them.

Despite the fact that he's hyper-sensitive to criticism.

You think he's whining about unfair now, wait until he gets a small fraction of the criticism that Bush has gotten (although I think he will get more negative press due to bonehead decisions during his 4 years).

Go ahead and vote for the devil, there will be HELL to pay.

That is the great thing about this country, the freedom to vote for who you choose.

The other thing that is great is the ability for the people that advised against a certain candidate to be able to say "I told you so!" when things turn out as they predicted leaving the candidates supporters with egg on their face.

 

[Delta]

Military experience alone is nothing.

Except for Clinton, all of the American presidents since Hoover had some level of military experience. While it doubtless contributed to what they became, I certainly can't say it made many of them great. In my opinion, the greatest of the lot in terms of foreign policy were Truman and Reagan. But while both were Army captains, there is a big difference between leading an artillery company in combat and making propaganda films. It's impossible to predict how McCain's military experience would direct his presidency.

As others above have pointed out, accomplishments are perhaps a better measure of leadership skills and vision. I'm not quite sure what either McCain or Obama accomplished that is worth much. McCain survived POW camp and Obama spent other people's money to create a soon-condemned housing project which made his friends rich.

 

[Straycat]

The reason claimed for Obama not visiting wounded troops was that he didn't want to pull them into a campaign op.

Well, there was a REAL simple solution to that: leave the cameras and support staff outside. He could have just visited the troops himself, shaking hands and thanking them for their sacrifices - in short, making the visit about THEM, not about himself.

Too much to ask, I guess.

Yeah, that's "leadership" I want to follow, you bet!

I honestly don't comprehend how anyone can believe this man would be a good President. Passionate promises for unspecified "change" aren't evidence of leadership.