OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Edratman]

McCain and his supporters are constantly touting his superior experience as a primary foundation of his qualifications to be President. I'm going to address "experience".

Fact: He was an officier in the US Navy. Does that mean that all former officers are superior tacticians, leaders of armed forces and an expert in all matters military? For the answer pick up any military history book and realize that in almost every battle, both sides had a leader with long experience and exposure to matters military. And one of them always loses!
(I am not saying Obama is/would be a better supreme commander, merely pointing out the thin validity of the experience claim.)

Another example regarding experience regards football head coaches. Just about every year, after a team wins the Super Bowl, the offensive and/or defensive coordinators are annointed as the next great head coaches. To be specific, look at the New England Patriots. A couple of years ago, both the offensive and defensive head coaches, Charlies Weiss and Romeo Crennel, went to Notre Dame and the Cleveland Browns, respectively, as head coaches. What happened then? Well, the Partriots, after losing these two "Great" coaches, never missed a beat and have been as successful as ever. Whereas the two teams with "Can't miss, gotta-be-great" head coaches have disappointed, to put it kindly. The obvious conclusion is that the Patriots head coach, Bill Belichek, is the actual source of leadership on the team and both assistants, while technically superior, relied on his leadership to get the players to do what they wanted them to do. Thus they were replaced by two other technically competent cogs and the equation for the Patriots remained unchanged.

My point is that time and proximity to a position has no relationship to an individuals skills and cannot serve as a predictor of success at the next position of responsibility. This is very true when a primary component of a position requires leadership.

True leadership ability is an extremely rare talent. There are countless definitions of leadership, but in my opinion, it comes down to one simple thing: the ability to get people to do what you want them to do. There are many ways that a person can achieve real leadership, the most common is fear; there are other and better methods, but they require better and more versitile skills to achieve success.

Think about your job. How many bosses are real leaders? How many meetings have you left and later enjoyed a laugh with your fellow co-workers at the absurdity of the next "plan-of-the-week", or received an e-mail detailing some poorly concieved and poorly executed program? Those are examples of failures in leadership and they are destined for failure because they will be only half-hearted supported by the staff.

For another example, I take you back to your jobs. How many times have you seen someone promoted beyond his/her level of competance? Most of the time you are unaware that the person will be beyond their level of competance until they actually get there. (Pride makes me refuse to even count the number of times I have made the mistake of promoting someone beyond their competance level.)

My point is that leadership is an elusive and impossible to predict asset. Experience and exposure in a lesser position is no guarantee of success. Of course, experience and exposure is infinitely better than absolutely zero experience, for the vast majority of people. Talented people will succeed without the experience and exposure, I cite Alexander the Great for one, but talented people are few and far between.

I am not touting Obama in this missive. His leadership is also still unknown and unproven. All I am intending to do is plant the seed that time and exposure is universally over-rated. One of my favoite expressions is "He does not have 20 years experience, he has had one years experience twenty times". And I would hope that you reflect on leadership at the same time.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Edratman

...
My point is that time and proximity to a position has no relationship to an individuals skills and cannot serve as a predictor of success at the next position of responsibility. This is very true when a primary component of a position requires leadership...

Incredibly well put!

[licker]

Originally Posted by Edratman

McCain and his supporters are constantly touting his superior experience as a primary foundation of his qualifications to be President. I'm going to address "experience".

Well you cannot deny that he has superior experience at least.

Originally Posted by Edratman

Fact: He was an officier in the US Navy. Does that mean that all former officers are superior tacticians, leaders of armed forces and an expert in all matters military? For the answer pick up any military history book and realize that in almost every battle, both sides had a leader with long experience and exposure to matters military. And one of them always loses!
(I am not saying Obama is/would be a better supreme commander, merely pointing out the thin validity of the experience claim.)

The military man is more likely to be a better military tactician than the non military man. That said, I don't think this is a particularly large issue anymore as the president doesn't actually formulate and tactics, nor carry them out.

Originally Posted by Edratman

Another example regarding experience regards football head coaches. Just about every year, after a team wins the Super Bowl, the offensive and/or defensive coordinators are annointed as the next great head coaches. To be specific, look at the New England Patriots. A couple of years ago, both the offensive and defensive head coaches, Charlies Weiss and Romeo Crennel, went to Notre Dame and the Cleveland Browns, respectively, as head coaches. What happened then? Well, the Partriots, after losing these two "Great" coaches, never missed a beat and have been as successful as ever. Whereas the two teams with "Can't miss, gotta-be-great" head coaches have disappointed, to put it kindly. The obvious conclusion is that the Patriots head coach, Bill Belichek, is the actual source of leadership on the team and both assistants, while technically superior, relied on his leadership to get the players to do what they wanted them to do. Thus they were replaced by two other technically competent cogs and the equation for the Patriots remained unchanged.

Indeed, many owners of NFL teams do not understand that one man cannot make much of a difference without the support and backing of the entire organization. The Patriots have become a superior organization, more due to Bob Kraft than necessarilly to Bellichek. However, you might want to double check if the Patriots have not skipped a beat since losing Weiss and Crennel... clearly they have, since they have not won a SB since those two left, and for the level they were at, that is indeed missing a beat.

In any event, Notre Dame is actually decent this year, so it took Weiss some time perhaps to get the ship going in the direction he wanted it to. The Browns are not good, and Crennel is not a good head coach, but more importantly, the organization is a poor organization without clear direction.

If you look at the entirety of the US government as an analogy for an NFL team you may be able to make a stronger comparison, however, then you must grant that the president to head coach isn't exactly the correct comparison, and even so, the president is limited by the congress and supreme court in what he can do, and ultimately limited by the fact that he has to please his party to keep himself politically viable. Which indeed may speak more to 'hiring' an older 'coach' since they won't have anything to lose once they are done.

Originally Posted by Edratman

My point is that time and proximity to a position has no relationship to an individuals skills and cannot serve as a predictor of success at the next position of responsibility. This is very true when a primary component of a position requires leadership.

No relationship? That's an overly strong statement I think most would agree. Though to be fair, neither McCain nor Obama has any executive experience anyway, and my opinion is that we need people in Washington who aren't already comfortable in Washington, as the special interests, lobbiests, and general climate there is what needs to change. And again, neither has an edge there, they are both dependent on their comities, and both beholden to outside forces.

Originally Posted by Edratman

True leadership ability is an extremely rare talent. There are countless definitions of leadership, but in my opinion, it comes down to one simple thing: the ability to get people to do what you want them to do. There are many ways that a person can achieve real leadership, the most common is fear; there are other and better methods, but they require better and more versitile skills to achieve success.

Meh, you probably agree that this country is so divided at this point that neither of these candidates can be successful at this just due to the 'D' or 'R' associated with them. I also don't think either possesses any kind of great leadership qualities.

Originally Posted by Edratman

Think about your job. How many bosses are real leaders? How many meetings have you left and later enjoyed a laugh with your fellow co-workers at the absurdity of the next "plan-of-the-week", or received an e-mail detailing some poorly concieved and poorly executed program? Those are examples of failures in leadership and they are destined for failure because they will be only half-hearted supported by the staff.

Very true, but what has this to do with McCain or Obama?

Originally Posted by Edratman

For another example, I take you back to your jobs. How many times have you seen someone promoted beyond his/her level of competance? Most of the time you are unaware that the person will be beyond their level of competance until they actually get there. (Pride makes me refuse to even count the number of times I have made the mistake of promoting someone beyond their competance level.)

Again...

Originally Posted by Edratman

My point is that leadership is an elusive and impossible to predict asset. Experience and exposure in a lesser position is no guarantee of success. Of course, experience and exposure is infinitely better than absolutely zero experience, for the vast majority of people. Talented people will succeed without the experience and exposure, I cite Alexander the Great for one, but talented people are few and far between.

Hmm... it would seem the book on leadership as it pertains to McCain is easier to write than the book on Obama. If you are saying that Obama's leadership is an unknown quantity, and that while he may be able to make pretty speeches and look like an intellectual, but ultimately he has almost nothing concrete in his background upon which to judge his leadership abilities, then I'd agree. On the other hand, McCain has a long public record from which you can ascertain that he has lead unpopular fights, and made unpopular decisions. I don't pretend to know the answer to which is potentially the better leader, just that McCain has shown it is unlikely he would be a disastrous leader, though also doubtful a transcendental leader.

Originally Posted by Edratman

I am not touting Obama in this missive. His leadership is also still unknown and unproven. All I am intending to do is plant the seed that time and exposure is universally over-rated. One of my favoite expressions is "He does not have 20 years experience, he has had one years experience twenty times". And I would hope that you reflect on leadership at the same time.

Heh. Are you sure you're not touting Obama? That's smacks of double speak.

I also think you are wrong to speak of experience as always being overrated, sure for some it can be, for others it likely is very valuable.

As it pertains to this election I would agree that it is irrelevant, since neither of them really have the experience of being an executive.

[Foodstamp]

The voters are why this country stinks, not the candidates. If you would all quit accepting the lesser evil and vote the way you wanted to vote instead, our country would be a lot better off. I will be writing in a vote and hoping next election cycle the rest of you will dissolve your ties to the party you hate the least so we can turn this country around. I know that is wishful thinking because a lot of people would rather say that their team won rather than vote in someone competent.

[Gandalf Parker]

I know Im laughably diplomatic at times but I think I prefer that in a leader also. I would rather have a president who is flexible and willing to discuss subjects with his advisors over someone who bulls thru on their opinion in spite of what experts and advisers say. I think we have already had a touch of that.

Gandalf Parker
--
Daddy? Are we a republic or a democracy?
Neither son. We are a capitalism.

[Mithras]

As a european I would like Obama to win. He seems to be the lesser of two evils but to me thats not the point. I don't know how you'll take this but I see Obama as a milestone, it says to me that the US is capable of voting in a, to be frank, black person. I'm sixteen and I'd have thought I'd see it.
So no matter what he does later, I'll celebrate if he gets elected. Its a historic milestone.

[lch]

That's somewhat my notion as well. Too bad that Condi Rice isn't a candidate. The US having a black woman as president, that would really be a signal. And somehow, strangely, I'd think that she'd even have better chances of winning than Obama.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

That's somewhat my notion as well. Too bad that Condi Rice isn't a candidate. The US having a black woman as president, that would really be a signal. And somehow, strangely, I'd think that she'd even have better chances of winning than Obama.

I'd vote for condi in a minute - or powell.
Just. not. Soteuro.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Just. not. Soteuro.

Why do you insist on calling him that? He was born as Barack Hussein Obama II to Barack Hussein Obama Senior, so I'd guess that he's entitled to the name. Do you have that little faith in the government that you'd think they let somebody run for president of the United States under a false name? Sticking to calling him Soetoro without any reason is just trolling.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

Why do you insist on calling him that? He was born as Barack Hussein Obama II to Barack Hussein Obama Senior, so I'd guess that he's entitled to the name. Do you have that little faith in the government that you'd think they let somebody run for president of the United States under a false name? Sticking to calling him Soetoro without any reason is just trolling.

And presuming I am without reason is somewhat ignorant.
Do you know when he changed his name - and why? I do - both the reason he gives in his book dreams of my father, and the more likely 'real' reason.

Since you will call me a rascist etc if I tell you - I suggest you go read Dreams of my father. And read it in his own words.

Lastly, I suggest you consider why would anyone change their name from Barry Soutero to Barrack Hussein Obama? Do you think just perhaps if you were going to be involved in an activist miniority movement that somehow the name 'Barry' might not go over too well? And then look at when it happens...

When considering people in general, and politicians in specific, it is often more useful to consider what they do, rather than what they say.