Hillary Clinton is a bureaucrat but is she a leader?

[marions ghost]

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

I hear about Hillary that she is an able administrator, she "gets things done," she is an accomplished politician. I don't argue with that. She has navigated her personal course through difficult challenges. But she has made deeply disturbing choices along the way. They have been discussed many times here, so I assume everybody knows the issues.

Is Hillary Clinton really a good leader? Can she --in any way-- unify a seriously troubled, seriously divided nation, a nation tightly controlled by a few for the sake of the few, a nation that is now in social and economic decline? The support for both Trump and Sanders' candidacies tells us how bad it is.

What would it take to begin to change course for a better tomorrow for our children, to find some solutions/cures for our massive problems--to avoid sliding deeper into a hell of our own making, here at home or in another for profit war? If Hillary has what it takes, define how she fits that role. Or if Sanders fills the job description better, what gives him that ability?

In general, what kind of leader do we need now--what characteristics? This is a serious question.
Obviously I've made my choice --based on my feeling that "staying the course" has only limited effectiveness now. I'd like to hear opinions at this point. What kind of president do we really need at this critical juncture?

[JaneyVee]

1. Make America Whole Again.

[marions ghost]

6. How would Hillary do that?

What does she have going for her that would unify a deeply polarized, scared, angry, frustrated populace? How does she accomplish that? By what political means?

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Its got electrolytes!

Seriously, that sentence means absolutely nothing.

[4139]

2. She lead the world to attack Libya on bogus reports of mass murder of civilians!

Proven leader, just like W!

[Maedhros]

5. That's okay. Wars are only bad when Republicans start them.

When it's Our Side, they're great!

[rock]

4. Yes

Thanks for asking. I like to be kept in the loop.

[marions ghost]

7. If you like Hillary, can you defend her as a unifier of this country?

And as a world leader? It's not just a figurehead job.

What makes her qualified, other than the fact that she has succeeded in performing her functions in the past?

What makes her a leader for the future?

If she is the presumed candidate, as people around here think, what can she do in the future for this country and why do you think she's able to accomplish those goals?

[rock]

8. My wife says I'm not funny, the Marx brothers are funny

So my reply is, "There ain't no sanity clause!"

[CorporatistNation]

69. EXCELLENT OP! IT IS A SHAME THAT PEOPLE MOSTLY JUST FOLLOW RATHER THAN ASK IMPORTANT

QUESTIONS... AND DO JUST A LITTLE RESEARCH. Therre are no secrets about Hillary... IT IS ALLLLL ON YOUTUBE... HILLARY DOING HER OWN THING... DAMAGING HER BRAND, INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER ALL BY HERSELF. IT IS A SHAME THAT THE CORPORATIST MEDIA HAS LONG AGO LOST ITS PENCHANT FOR JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY AS THE NATION HAS SLID INTO A CORPORATIST FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE.

[marions ghost]

70. Thank you

I see you feel strongly. Me too.

[noretreatnosurrender]

9. She's Not a Leader

Never has been and never will be.

[marions ghost]

14. So what's missing?

---what are you looking for in a leader?

It might seem like a simple question but I think we ought to ask it of a commander in chief. What qualities does this divided country need in the person who would try to unite us?

[noretreatnosurrender]

18. There is plenty missing with Senator Clinton

I will not list all of the reasons I don't consider her a leader. In answer to your other question - Generally - I'm looking for a leader who is not focused on their personal gain. One who has a vision of America that more closely matches that of all of it's citizens not just the ones who can help the "leader". One who is honest and trustworthy and fights like hell to support all of our citizens. One who tries to move our country towards unity not one who seeks to divide it for political gain. A leader listens to the people they are leading. They are also strong enough to say they don't have all the answers and that they want our input. I don't mean just lip service, we have plenty of "leaders" that do that. I want someone who is worthy of representing the people they are trying to lead. I want a leader who has integrity and a strong moral compass. I want a leader who when they make a mistake they don't try to deflect the blame onto someone else. They should hold themselves and others accountable instead of allowing political expediency to guide them. I also want a leader who has TRUE empathy for all people as shown by the policies that they support. I want a leader who has the courage to stand up for their beliefs. I don't blindly follow any leader because they are all human and make mistakes but one who has the above qualities will inspire me to believe that maybe, just maybe we can live up to the high ideals that we've always been told our country represents.

[marions ghost]

21. Excellent post

I love that one-- "someone who is worthy of representing the people they are trying to lead"

You set a very high standard.

[noretreatnosurrender]

24. Yes I do

It's a shame that more people don't do the same. We've allowed the wrong people to become our leaders and they have made a horrible mess of things. But instead of getting rid of them we keep falling for the same lies and put them or someone like them right back in office. The results of which are all too predictable. Too many people have given up on their ideals and have taken the lazy path of going along to get along. They consider it to be pragmatic when it's really selling out. I think somewhere deep down inside of them they know that and that's why a lot of them resent the people who have not given up their strong ideals just to have some scraps from the table. I feel sorry for them. What a horrible life it would be for me to have to settle for something less than what I believe is possible. No, I'm not looking for mediocre leaders that are only interested in themselves. I want those rare leaders who persevere and inspire people to be better than they were yesterday.

[marions ghost]

30. Wow

beautiful

[desmiller]

33. hmm.. lets see what's missing in Hillary....

- originality (Copying Sanders to No end)

- transparency (Refuse to release those wonderful transcripts)

- honesty (From Hillary to others that endorsed her)

- integrity

- courage (Since she likes to hide behind Obama and DWS a lot)

- energy (*duh*)

- honor (Ask Bullhorn Bill)

- support (Having a vagina is no where near enough. Sorry )


Anything that I missed, please feel free to add on.

[marions ghost]

39. nice list of desirable qualities

I would add

- wisdom.

[desmiller]

42. Yes. wisdom. I like it.

- wisdom (Underestimating the Bern is never wise ---> we took Michigan from Hillary and virtually tied her in more than one state)

[marions ghost]

47. Yep

[cleopotrick]

11. We need a leader of unshakeable conviction,

who can weather the nonstop poll-crazed media maelstrom, without being drawn into wars of vengeance or convenience (and sometimes convenient vengeance), without being dissuaded from his/her stated mission, the mandate given by the people

[marions ghost]

15. good points, thanks

[cleopotrick]

45. you got it homie!

[marions ghost]

46. backatcha

welcome to DU

[kristopher]

12. No, she is "The Triangulator"

That is, by design, the work of a divisive person.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Yes, she is.

What we need right now is a president who can effectively outmanouvre an obstructionist congress, protecting what progress has been made, delivering small incremental gains, and hopefully making it easier for the Democrats to retake the house in the future.

Important characteristics for that are experience, competence and realism.

[marions ghost]

17. OK

good answer, thanks.

But I must say, you aren't expecting much progress. Sounds like you think Hillary would just keeping the plane in a holding pattern. And later somebody else would land it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. That's the optimistic outcome, yes.

I don't think it's a safe assumption that things will get better before they get worse.

The US system of government is set up to encourage stasis and gridlock. Any of the House, the Senate and the President can effectively stymie the other two, and filibustering means that you don't even necessarily need a majority.

Right now, one of the three branches has a built-in Republican majority due to redistricting. I don't think it would be impossible for the Democrats to overcome that, but I think the odds are against it happening, and if it does happen it probably wouldn't last long.

So the most likely major deviation from the status quo would come if it's the Republicans rather than the Democrats who manage to get the triple next.

Nominating Trump might be cause for cautious optimism - it's hard to predict how much damage that might do to the Republican brand. But I'm not sure how long that will last.

In the long run, I think things are likely only to change for the better if/when the Democrats are able to control more state legislatures and hence redistrict more fairly, or even to give themselves an advantage. But I don't really understand why the Republicans are winning more states, and so I'm not sure if, when or why it will change.

[Armstead]

49. I think you're missing an important aspect of leadership

Inspiring people and giving them something to support.

As awful and wrongheaded as the GOP are, they successfully created a core message that inspired (in their case bamboozled) people . They claimed to champion freedom from government restraints, high taxes and immoral liberal social policies.

It was a crock, but it was pro-active and addressed the frustrations AND the aspirations people had. It set up an "enemy" and it offered so-called solutions.

Democrats gave up having any coherent counter message years and years ago. They also sold out their principles. (Bad as the GOP is, they do have principles that are expressed in their message.)

More of the same-old, same old tapioca nothingness from Democrats is not going to translate into political gains/.

[marions ghost]

60. addressing the frustrations of the people

who have been more than patient.

[Baobab]

20. you mean by capitulating on everything important, so you mean a untier, an untier of corporations

from the yoke of toxic chemical and labor regulations?

[marions ghost]

16. This

is not a trick question. Speak without rebuttal from me.

In other words, what are the People's priorities, not the oligarchs' priorities? What kind of leader can really hear the people's voice (and you don't want to see me do Jean Valjean here) but how are they going to hear us?

What can any president do? What should we ask them to do for us?

[Baobab]

19. No, she is a divider, not a unifier

She's too arrogant, she supports all sorts of neoliberal (right wing) causes like privatization of what used to be the public sector that was the envy of the world- and tries to pretend to be a moderate. She will not be a friend to working families, she wants to vastly increase onshoring and subcontracting outside the US wage system in the public sector. She supports TPP, calling it the gold standard of trade deals, she supports water privatization, fracking, elimination of the rights to education and health care in other countries for corporations.

[marions ghost]

22. So you think that

things will actually get worse with Hillary in the White House? She won't be able to hold her finger in the dike & the problems we have now will seriously worsen?

[beachbumbob]

23. Being Secretary of State is such an easy job...lol...

Sanders has never held any type of job with such responsibilities....sitting on the side railing about social and economic injustice is NOT leadership....it's just being a grumpy old man

[marions ghost]

26. Here is an article about Hillary's performance as Secretary of State:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state/2014/05/30/16daf9c0-e5d4-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

Long article about what she did at link above.

Concluding paragraph:

"The verdict? Clinton brought a clear vision of U.S. interests and power to the job, and future presidents and secretaries of state will find many of her ideas essential. Yet she struggled to bring together the different elements of her vision into a coherent set of policies. The tension between America’s role as a revolutionary power and its role as a status quo power predates Clinton; the struggle to reconcile those two opposed but equally indispensable aspects of American foreign policy has survived her tenure at the State Department."

-------------------------
Bernie Sanders' 30 year job in the US Senate seems pretty demanding too, but you see him as a useless grumpy old man so I won't bother to try to persuade you otherwise.

But let's be clear about Hillary--her record is not that great despite her responsibilities.

[bigwillq]

25. I don't see Hillary as a leader.

I find her to be very insecure and a flip flopper.

[islandmkl]

27. “A bureaucrat is a Democrat who holds some office that a Republican wants.” H. Truman...

and these days...vice versa...

[Impedimentus]

28. I suspect she is a leader in getting huge speaking fees from the banisters.

And in changing her positions on a daily or hourly basis to fit the crowd. So that would make her a leading flip-flopper.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[seabeyond]

29. She unites in diversity, hands down, better than any other candidate.

[marions ghost]

32. Can you give an example?

---How have you seen her do this?

[rusty quoin]

31. I want a Democratic Congress.

[marions ghost]

34. A Democratic congress full of the very wealthy?

Or does that matter to you...the problem of trying to get campaign finance reform so that people who are less rich can get elected to congress?

[rusty quoin]

35. Obama had a little window to get the ACA passed.

If the 2000 election had not been stolen, so much of the bad stuff which happened in the following years would not have happened, including Citizens United.

[marions ghost]

38. Yes but it was stolen

--and usually if you have to steal elections, you don't belong in the office to begin with.

So bad people got into office and did their worst, and now we are still trying to do damage control. So what type of leader do we need to begin to lead us out of the wilderness??

[rusty quoin]

41. Well people like Bernie of course.

But you have to work in a system you play in, and fight to change the rules.

The Republicans have been very successful at doing it. The only problem, is Republican base likes to be lied to, and we hate it.

It's a fight to take over the Democratic Party, and it is a long fight.

If you have a faster answer I am willing to listen.

Me...I am just about over being pissed. Constant pissed off is for fox viewers.

Smart is about the powerful who keep them pissed off.

I am looking for the long game so that we can get more Bernies in power.

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. I don't vote for leaders, I vote for representatives.

She will be an excellent an representative in the executive branch.

[marions ghost]

37. The usual term is leader

but you can say 'representative.' OK with me.

So what qualities should your representative possess?

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. We are a representative Constitutional Democracy.

We elect representatives to perform the tasks in government that we can not. Some voters like to call them leaders, and many of the elected representatives have adopted the term "leader," but that doesn't make it so.

The President is our representative in the Executive Branch of government.
The power of the executive is derived from us, not the other way around.
They are there by our consent.

[marions ghost]

43. I don't understand why "leader" is not acceptable to you

but never mind. You gave me the definition, but that does not address my question.

What qualities of presidential representative are we looking for?

Right now and for the future?

[auntpurl]

48. I am not the person to whom you're replying...

but I'll answer.

I'm looking for a pragmatic realist who can compromise when necessary. Someone who is left on social issues, strong on foreign policy, and a little bit conservative on fiscal matters. I am a moderate Democrat. Hillary Clinton is basically my ideal candidate.

[marions ghost]

50. OK

--and you are the Clinton campaign's ideal voter.

Part 2 of my question is, how can she unify the nation? How does she represent half of the Democratic party voters that go for Sanders, and how in the world can she possibly work with the Trump Republicans? Because if these factions are not given a voice, unrest grows. Seems to me that Hillary would be completely hamstrung, satisfying ONLY her corporate sponsors.

Thanks for your reply.

[auntpurl]

51. Well...

Half the Democratic party voters have not gone for Sanders. Hillary is winning the popular vote by 2.5 million. I'm not trying to nitpick; I do actually have a point here (sorry, I'm old, it takes me a while!). My point is that while Bernie has certainly fired up a group of voters to where they will go to rallies etc, it has not, thus far, translated into actual votes, at least not in sufficient numbers to keep this primary close. That may change, but it hasn't so far, and the window is rapidly closing for Bernie. It's still not an impossibility, but it's getting there.

This speaks to your larger point about the POTUS needing to be a uniter. I would argue that, based on what I've observed and what I mentioned above, the Bernie supporters who are Bernie or Bust, ie, people who will stop participating in the political process if Bernie is not the nominee, are a very vocal but actually fairly small minority of voters.

The Democratic party is a big tent. The far left has always felt disenfranchised, I think. I can understand that. It's the same thing that happened with the Republicans, with the Tea Party (please note! I am not comparing Bernie supporters and Tea Partiers in any other way! Bernie supporters are generally good Dems/liberals while Tea Partiers are racist assholes). The Republicans made the mistake of charging to the right to appeal to these far-right voters, and we are currently watching the destruction of their party as a result (I'll bring popcorn). I don't think it would serve the Democratic party any better to charge to the left. I'd be happy if the party naturally went left, but I don't think it's going to happen. Most people are somewhere in the middle. And I think Hillary appeals to those people - that's why I believe she's winning.

Maybe that doesn't answer your question, but it's the best I've got.

[marions ghost]

57. The left has always felt disenfranchised, you say

I agree with that.

But you imply that if the party moves more to the left, that it will cause the destruction of the Dem party. (!?)

I see--you do not want a Democratic party that is a big tent. You want a small tent.

[auntpurl]

58. I said "charged" to the left

Not moved there naturally, with widespread general support from MOST Democrats. One of the biggest questions I've had about Bernie's campaign is how effective it would be to bring in a VERY liberal guy at the very top, with no infrastructure below him. The executive branch only has so much power. There needs to be a big groundswell to move a party - it's not a quick process. If you try to do it too fast, you will alienate all the middle-of-the-road members of the party - and they are the majority. If they weren't, Bernie would be winning right now. He might still, but it hasn't happened yet.

[marions ghost]

59. Bernie is more reasonable than you give him credit for

He certainly has a groundswell of the people behind him. Because he's saying what really needs to be said to "move" the country , as well as hopefully move the party a notch--at least bring the party back to the middle instead of right.

[treestar]

73. Being in a minority is not being

Disenfranchised. That's where you can't vote. The left, as such, has as much right to vote as anyone else.

[marions ghost]

76. Yes it is in this country

there is no voice for the left in the Democratic party.

Yes we can vote, but we have no candidate that is responding to us. We have no representation except a handful. Because we always have to go with the Democrats who are much more like Republicans, further from us than ever before.

[treestar]

79. Neither do the far right tea partiers or the greens, etc.

if you are in any small minority of voters, you can still vote and let them know there is at least some percentage who think/vote that way, but it's not fair to the majority to complain that somehow you should get more value from your vote than theirs.

I voted Green in the local district for state legislature (no Democratic candidate was on the ballot). So in theory my vote (in fact it went 17% green, the rest Republican as the middle class idiots who live in the area think being Republican means they are well off) - did not give me much of a voice in the state legislature, I still wanted them to know there were somebody out there with my opinion, and they are at least aware that 17% of us don't agree with Republicanism.

I was in a small minority there but that's not the same as being disenfranchised. Nobody stopped me from voting. Not a good word to use. Disenfranchisement is more serious - where they try to stop African American people from being able to vote, and the like.

[marions ghost]

82. OK let's compare tea partiers and Sanders supporters (!?)

I think the tea partiers have done VERY well, don't you? The R party embraced them.

I think the left has been silenced, suppressed, even disenfranchised.

Sorry not buying your comparison.

But maybe THAT IS what is behind all this fear and loathing of Bernie Sanders' message. You are actually comparing his campaign to the extremist tea party! thank you for that revelation ......

[treestar]

72. The nation need not be unified

Or it is always unified. Most people accept the Constitution and abide by the results of elections. This has been working now for 229 years. People are capable of sticking with it even in the face of deep disagreements.

Even where we don't like election results, we complain about them to the courts which are also part of that system.

No significant number of people want to change that. It certainly won't happen for Bernie.

[marions ghost]

75. Good grief!

I guess you think Bernie as president would overthrow the constitution and start a new system?



What kind of kool aid are you drinking?

[treestar]

80. No, but it seems to be what people expect him to do

A lot of the people supporting him.

The demand to "unify the nation" - using that language indicates it's not good we have people with different opinions. And implies Bernie can "unify the nation," which of course he cannot do and it's not "no we can't" negativity to say so, but it's a good thing - we don't have to unify behind any leader. We can argue whatever we want.

[marions ghost]

84. Sanders supporters expect him to make efforts to

improve on the EXISTING system, so that it works better for the people--to help bring about needed reforms. Bernie Sanders does NOT represent an overthrow of the system. Please--stop your imagination from working overtime.

I think this country does need a president who can unify the people to stop struggling AGAINST each other and start working WITH each other. We have been divided for so long. Economic equality goes a long way to helping that. We unify for the Common Good--not to become communists.

Please take a minute to understand Bernie Sanders. This page explains his issues clearly:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

[treestar]

67. It is a government by We the People

Not a government of we following a leader. Ironic Bernie supporters want a leader instead. This Revolution sound like one meant to undo the one we had.

[marions ghost]

68. weird argument IMO

Presidents ARE by definition, leaders.

I am asking --what are the qualities we would like to see in the leader of the nation at this point in time? (Whatever term you prefer for leader--you pick)

Anyway you slice it, Bernie represents many people. He has successfully governed the people he has represented. And obviously many believe he could lead the nation.

But when you say "this Revolution sounds like one meant to undo the one we had"--I am really lost.

Exactly what revolution are you talking about?
Back in 1776?

[treestar]

71. You missed the basics

We the People govern. We have no leader. That is what our revolution was about. We govern ourselves. That is basic. No more kings or other leaders. We elect our representatives to carry out our will as expressed in the Constitution.

[marions ghost]

74. What kind of game are we playing here?

Call them representatives--I don't care what word you use.

What qualities make a good one?

You want to deflect the question.

[treestar]

81. One that listens to their constituency

though of course that's often called "pandering" around here. One that recognizes everyone there, not just the minority who consider themselves morally superior, whether they be Christians or Progressives or what-have-you. Thus they are accused of being "Establishment" as if that's a bad thing. Our Establishment is stable and the power is spread out so we have no one leader.

[marions ghost]

83. If you think our establishment is stable all I can say

is fasten your seat belt.

"The power is spread out" --OK no argument with that, except when the powerful are in collusion and nothing trickles down.

[lmbradford]

52. Yes and no

Leads us into wars and corporate shilling that helps the 1%.

No judgement, steals Bernies message, will do or say anything to get elected, and is completely without scruples or morals imo.

[Buzz cook]

53. No one can mend the divide between

Conservatives and centrists, let alone liberals. And they probably shouldn't try.

[marions ghost]

54. Interesting observation, thanks

but a little confusing. I take your meaning as:

Conservatives vs Centrists

Centrists vs Liberals

Conservatives vs Liberals

----------------------------
None of these oppositions can be unified.

Care to explain "and they probably shouldn't try" --now that's an interesting comment.

[Buzz cook]

55. Cons vs libs

I think liberals and centrists can work together. I don't think anyone can work with conservatives.

[marions ghost]

56. Hillary works with conservative corporates

--of course the R party is so split, it's hard to say who represents them any more.

Very little real progress would happen with a Clinton presidency IMO. Too much opposition or non-support of her.

[craigmatic]

61. Not really no but we only need someone competent to win the election and hold the Obama gains.

She does that, she has the job for 4 years. I really don't expect her to last longer than that. She's too cautious in speech and policy.

[marions ghost]

62. Agree she's too cautious

so how does she hold the Obama gains

[craigmatic]

63. Obama basically sucked all the air out of the room for the next dem anyway so all she has to do

is stop republicans from de-funding anything and be ready to veto.

[marions ghost]

64. Sounds depressing

I'd like to think we could do better than that.

[craigmatic]

66. Universal healthcare, slavery reparations, and ending all forms of discrimination are there too

but I know Obama/Hillary won't touch it. Obama doesn't like to discuss such things and Hillary won't see the importance. Her list of priorities will be small. Her actions will be few, she'll play the middle simultaneously enraging the left for not doing enough and the right for "doing too much". By then the repigs will have found a suitable moderate who can beat her in 2020.

[marions ghost]

78. That's how I see it

she won't make substantial progress. People seem to think she can hold the few gains we got--I'm not sure she can even do that. This country is crying out for a bold president who knows how to make some corrections that benefit the people, for a change. Hillary is not positioned to do that.

[cantbeserious]

77. A Follower - Not A Leader - Poll Driven - Oligarch Controlled - Tentative - Passive

eom