Strange Legacy

Cashing-In with Confessions

It looks like the latest in a series of diatribes by former White House staffers is about to make its debut; Scott McClellan, the former White House Press Secretary, has written a book about controversial events that transpired during his tenure with the Bush administration. While tell-all compositions are nothing new for the Bush White House, this one seems to be getting special attention because of its source – McClellan isn’t simply a disgruntled ex-cabinet member, he’s the guy who once stood at the podium day after day as the administration’s public face.

Sufficed to say, this book about controversial events is generating a lot of controversy itself. McClellan bluntly asserts that while the Bush administration may not have lied to the American people it nonetheless distorted the truth in making the case for war in Iraq (is there a difference?) Current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino has accused McClellan of simply being a disgruntled employee, and general sentiment on the right is that McClellan is a traitor. Not surprisingly, many on the left are viewing this book as one more nail in the coffin of Bush’s legacy – further vindication for their criticism of his presidency.

If there’s one thing that bothers me about these tell-all novels by ex-administration officials – from Richard Clark, to George Tenet, to Scott McClellan – it is the hypocrisy of attempting to benefit from their role in the alleged mistakes of this White House. All of these authors admit to personally letting the American people down in some way – their books frequently contain an apology for failing to live up to the ideals of public service. Yet, how much money are these men reaping from their confessions?

Does this mean that former administration officials who participated in egregious errors should remain silent? Not at all – but if things really are as bad as they claim, and if they played any part in those mistakes, the apology needs to be validated by a forfeiture of the profits generated by their books. If, as Richard Clark claims, he could have done more to prevent 9/11, then he should be willing to give back the proceeds of his writing to the families who lost loved ones on that fateful day. Likewise, if Scott McClellan believes that the administration was not forthright in making the case for war – that war itself was not truly necessary – and he helped sell that war to the American people, then a similar offering should be expected. This shouldn’t be too hard – the last time I checked the American people will gladly accept cash, check or money order.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Ehud Barak and the Peace that Almost Was

I recently read an article on MSNBC.com about the strong opposition that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is facing from the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak has issued an ultimatum to Olmert, telling the prime minister to step down from his post due to serious corruption allegations he is facing. When I first read this article, Barak’s name stirred a memory in the back of my mind; a quick search of Wikipedia confirmed my recollection of his role in the peace agreement that was almost forged between Israel and the Palestinians near the end of the last millennium. While his attempts ultimately proved futile, they still serve as a powerful example of true leadership and self-sacrifice.

Ehud Barak served as Israeli Prime Minister from 1999 to 2001. This period coincided with the final year of the Clinton presidency, a time when the former U.S. President was actively seeking to forge a legacy for himself through a lasting Israeli/Palestinian peace accord. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as the creation of a Palestinian state, had long been stymied by an unrelenting refusal by both sides to make critical compromises. Barak went farther then any Israeli leader before him to accommodate Palestinian demands – so much so that he quickly began losing the popular support of his own people. I remember thinking to myself how remarkable it was that he was willing to put his own career on the proverbial chopping block to reach this agreement, and how foolish Yasser Arafat seemed for refusing to compromise in like manner. I strongly suspected that Barak’s days as prime minister were numbered, and Arafat would soon be dealing with a much more hawkish and uncompromising Israeli leader.

Those who followed these developments remember well what happened next – Ariel Sharon, a former Israeli military leader who was reviled by the Palestinians for his role in the massacre of Muslims during the 1982 war with Lebanon, decided to tour the al-Aqsa Mosque located on the Dome of the Rock. Muslims consider this to be one of the holiest sites in Islam, and protests quickly broke out over its perceived desecration by Sharon’s presence. After clashes between Israeli police and Palestinian protesters resulted in casualties, the situation spun out of control and widespread rioting ensued. The peace process disintegrated, as did Ehud Barak’s career. His tenure as Israel Prime Minister was cut short by a special election in 2001, where he lost to none other than Ariel Sharon himself. Sufficed to say, Sharon didn’t share Barak’s enthusiasm for compromise with the Palestinians. The ongoing conflict has claimed hundreds of Palestinian and Israeli lives, and has negatively impacted international relations between the West and Middle-East on a broad scale.

After losing the special election Barak left politics to pursue a career in business, only to return in 2007 after winning an election to the leadership of the Israeli Labor Party. From there, he secured his current position as Israeli Defense Minister. While few here in the U.S. will recall his involvement in those fateful events at the turn of the century, I think it is important to draw attention to his example of true leadership and self-sacrifice. It’s regrettable that his sacrifice didn’t yield the desired results, and that the pain and misery of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues to this day; nevertheless, if more leaders were willing place the greater good ahead of their own political fortunes I believe the world would be a much better place.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Et Tu, Brute?: Lessons on Loyalty and Leadership

Few traitors are more famous than Marcus Brutus of Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar. Brutus is a close, personal friend of Caesar – the leader of the Roman Empire. Yet, despite their relationship, Brutus joins a group of conspiring assassins and puts a knife in Caesar’s back. As Caesar lies dying, he looks up at his friend and gasps, “Et tu, Brute?” – or roughly translated, “you also, Brutus?”

What compelled Brutus to commit this horrifying act of betrayal? Was it ambition, envy, or a concealed hatred for his friend? Most who read Shakespeare agree that Brutus’ actions weren’t driven by any of these nefarious motives – rather, his actions were rooted in principle. Brutus was persuaded by the other assassins that Caesar was planning to extend his power by abolishing the republic and establishing a monarchy, thus making himself a king. Brutus loved his friend, but he loved freedom and self-rule even more. Ultimately, Brutus’ loyalty to the ideal of a republic drove him to murder and betrayal.

As is common with many of Shakespeare’s plays, Julius Caesar teaches us an important lesson; people aren’t loyal to people – they’re loyal to ideals and principles. If an individual pledges allegiance to a person or group, it is because that person or group embodies principles to which that individual subscribes. When these principles are abandoned or forsaken, loyalty disintegrates. Brutus’ loyalty and friendship to Caesar dissolved when Brutus was led to believe that Caesar was turning his back on principles which Brutus held dear.

Of all the follies which lead to the downfall of promising leaders, this is near the top of list: failure to understand the origin of the loyalty expressed by the people who follow them. Many leaders falsely believe it is their charisma, or other personal attributes which bind their people to them; such a leader will be startled and offended when seemingly innocuous decisions cause those people to start leaving en masse. What this leader doesn’t understand is that the betrayal of his/her people was probably preceded by his/her own betrayal of important principles.

The founders of our nation understood the primacy of principles in securing the loyalty of the people to their government. Just as important as the decision to forge our government in the pattern of democracies and republics of the past, was the decision to build our nation upon the rule of law. More than the will of people, or the will of its leaders, our country would be subject to self-evident principles; despite the tremendous influence wielded by senators, judges and even presidents, the most powerful entity in the United States would be the Constitution.

Similarly, the wisest leaders are willing to largely forfeit their authority to “the rule of law”, or a clearly defined code. Practically speaking, this means they will avoid doing certain things that they technically have the authority to do. The authority of these leaders may appear hollow at first glance – after all, doesn’t power mean that a person can act as he/she sees fit? Nevertheless, it is only this type of restrained, limited and confined authority which has any real permanence.

It’s interesting to stop and take a closer look at what we define as power or authority. For most leaders, their power – or ability to exercise influence according to their own ideas and desires – is largely derived from the loyalty of the people they lead. Loyalty in turn generally results from a sense of consistency that people observe in the principles and ideals to which their leader subscribes. Such consistency leads to expectations; subordinates anticipate that a leader will react to a given situation in a manner consistent with these principles. If the leader abandons theses principles, the people will begin to abandon the leader. Thus, leaders can only retain authority by exercising restraint in their use of power.

Leaders must actively seek to understand the common ideals or principles responsible for loyalty of their subordinates. Such understanding isn’t merely a component of effective leadership – it can be vital to a leader’s survival! Granted, most leaders won’t face the same life-and-death dilemma of Julius Caesar; nevertheless, if they are to maintain their authority then loyalty must be cultivated and jealously preserved. After all, you can only call yourself a leader when loyal people are willing to follow you.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum!: Lessons About Workforce Behavioral Problems

“The inmates are running the asylum!” How often is this refrain echoed by frustrated managers struggling with widespread disrespect for their authority? Yet another familiar phrase, “We can’t let the tail wag the dog!” These phrases can be used to describe a variety of behavioral issues; from employees who fail to perform desired tasks, to those who make outrageous demands, to those who act in open defiance of company policy. The common thread that binds each of these situations is the reality that managers have lost control of the people they lead.

The general response that leadership often takes when faced with these behavioral problems is one of either flight or fight – the problems continue to go unaddressed, or a heavy hand is brought to bare. The latter is used when leaders feel they have lost the respect of their people, and it is time to show them who’s boss. If the problems with employee behavior stem from previously weak leadership and a lack of accountability, then such a heavy hand may do the trick; nevertheless, the problem may actually stem from other causes, in which case a disciplinary crackdown may ineffective – or even disastrous. Below are some of the alternative reasons that managers may feel they have lost control, and some of the possible solutions to these problems.

1. Mixed Signals

This is the most basic and common reason that a workforce may not be performing its desired duties; fortunately, it’s also the easiest to correct. Employees will frequently fail meet expectations when those expectations are not clearly communicated. This problem can be exacerbated further if tasks and expectations are assigned which directly contradict one another – managers ask for both A and B, despite the reality that it’s impossible to have both.

Communication is vital to effective management. In organizations where change is frequent, adjustments in policy and expectation must be effectively communicated and filtered down through the organization. Otherwise an employee may continue pursuing an obsolete agenda, unaware that the work he/she is doing is no longer relevant. The confusion created by a lack of communication will quickly erode morale, and may lead to other behavioral problems as employees become frustrated with their leaders.

Sometimes this confusion is less the result of miscommunication and originates instead from a strong disagreement between senior managers. Like Greek deities these managers may pursue conflicting agendas or even attempt to undermine one another. If an employee is told one thing by her boss, and then another by her boss’ boss, her futile attempts to appease these contradictory demands is likely to upset both of these individuals. In this case the inmates aren’t running the asylum; rather, the insanity is trickling from the top-down.

The solution to these problems is simple: managers must take responsibility for effectively explaining goals and expectations to their employees. Supervisors should also regularly review the daily tasks of their subordinates, and ensure that these individuals understand exactly what they should be doing. Finally, leaders need to listen to their people to verify that tasks and goals are not being assigned which are exclusive to one another. These steps will dramatically improve employee morale, and lead to greater compliance with company policy.

2. The Inmates ARE Running the Asylum

This can be bitter pill to swallow. Employees will sometimes misbehave and act like they run the company because they do run the company – or, more to the point, the company cannot run without them. This is a pretty simple scenario: a company requires a certain type of employee to function; this employee has a very specialized skill-set and is difficult to replace. Moreover, there is stiff competition in the job market for this particular type of employee. Such an individual has tremendous leverage in the company for which he/she works.

It’s not uncommon for these indispensable players to become prima donnas and expect to have the world handed to them on a silver platter. Like famous movie stars they make outrageous demands because they can. As a manager, you cannot reverse this situation until you break your dependence on this particular type of employee – but be careful! People aren’t stupid, and if your MVP’s begin to sense that you’re attempting to reduce their influence they are likely to use it in ways that you won’t appreciate. Like many problems in business and life, this scenario is much easier to avoid than it is to correct; when setting up a new business model be leery about leaning on irreplaceable labor.

3. Martyrs

Perhaps the fastest way to lose control of one’s employees is to create martyrs. Frequently, a business will encounter opportunities that require immediate action. This action may require the business to reallocate resources, which in turn may adversely affect the jobs of some of its valuable people. When these changes come without any warning it’s not uncommon for those affected to feel betrayed – they assert that they have been tossed onto the sacrificial altar, and that all the talk about how much the company values its people is nothing more than shallow nonsense.

It’s remarkable how much power these martyrs can wield within an organization. Previously devoted employees who’ve been burned by sudden change can damage company morale on a wide scale. As people gather at the watercooler, those who harbor similar gripes (justified or otherwise) will begin to hitch their personal complaints to the martyr’s experience for added legitimacy. This can be heard in statements like, “Did you hear about what they did to Bob? Management doesn’t care about us little people anymore – I’ve been having a lot of problems with my manager too…” Everybody’s complaint suddenly seems valid when placed next to a martyr’s suffering, and behavioral problems soon follow.

As you can imagine, many businesses strive to negate this fallout by seeking quick reconciliation with those adversely impacted by sudden change. Special compensation arrangements are made – sometimes new jobs are invented – to limit the damage suffered by those who are affected. Nevertheless, these arrangements may not go far enough to satisfy the injured employees and they begin demanding more. Thus, once again, the tail starts wagging the dog – executive authority is trumped by the moral authority of those who feel like victims.

Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution to this dilemma; executive managers must carefully compare all the potential consequences of any major policy shift. This means looking beyond the anticipated benefit and seeing the potential fallout that might occur on the home-front. It’s also important to note that if major changes become too frequent – if employees start feeling jostled about – it will become harder and harder to pacify them. Change is a constant in business, and it’s impossible for any manager to perpetually make decisions that benefit everyone; nevertheless, it may be better to relinquish certain opportunities when the probable fallout (e.g. the likelihood of creating martyrs) is sufficient to undo the anticipated benefit.

The wisdom to determine the true cause of widespread employee misbehavior is one of the hallmarks of true business leadership. Managers who exhibit this discernment will be far more successful in business and life than those who don’t. Perhaps the most important lesson to remember is that while the tail shouldn’t wag the dog entirely, it will always wag the dog a little – absolute control and authority are an illusionary goal without substance. By responding to the legitimate concerns and needs of their people, managers can maintain their authority and ensure employee compliance with company policy. Thus, sanity can prevail, and employees will behave in positive ways that negate any comparison to asylum inmates.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Question: What is Hillary Thinking?

Many have stridently criticized Senator Clinton for remaining in the race, even as it becomes increasingly clear that Senator Obama is set to clinch the Democratic nomination. From late night talk shows to comedy sketches, the prevailing perception is that Hillary has become delusional. I disagree – despite her rhetoric to the contrary, I believe that Senator Clinton understands very well the dubious odds she’s facing and will probably drop out of this race very soon. Nevertheless, there is one move by Clinton which compels me to ask, “What is she thinking?” It is her attempt to legitimize her continuing campaign by arguing that despite Obama’s lead in overall delegates, she is still winning the popular vote.

The 2000 race for the White House stands as one of the most painful memories for faithful Democrats. Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in the popular vote, but still lost the election when the electoral votes were counted. This was a devastating loss for the Democrats as they saw themselves largely marginalized for the first six years of the Bush presidency, shut out from real governance by an increasingly hostile partisan environment. Under our current system it is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that ultimately decides elections. By focusing on the popular math, rather than delegate math, hasn’t it occurred to Hillary that she might be reopening some old wounds?

Senator Clinton certainly isn’t dumb, and I believe she’ll parlay the enormous influence she currently wields on the fortunes of the Democratic Party to secure some serious favors. Nevertheless, making statements which hearken back to the most painful defeat in recent Democratic history probably isn’t the smartest strategy for increasing this leverage. It is not only in the best interests of the party, but her own as well, that she cash in this influence sooner rather than later.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Quick Thought: The Leadership Difference Maker

The difference between wise and foolish leadership often comes down to this: wise leaders ask questions sincerely, whereas foolish leaders only ask them rhetorically.

Another interesting thought along these lines: above all else I believe it is the questions we ask or are not willing to ask – regardless of the answers – that truly define who we are.

Talk amongst yourselves!

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Negotiating Oil Prices

My brother-in-law recently asked for my advice about a major purchase – a piano. He was buying from a private seller, and wanted to know if I had any tips on how he could bring the price down. You’d think that with my years of experience in sales I’d be an accomplished negotiator when it comes these types of personal purchases – but I’m really not. The reason for this is simple; before I go to purchase anything, I thoroughly research and decide exactly what I want to buy. As such, when I approach the seller I have no leverage; I’ve already decided what I want and nothing else will do. I could try to bluff, but I’m not willing to risk losing my preferred acquisition. In order to be a truly effective negotiator you must be willing to walk away from the table — for that, you must have alternatives.

It’s interesting to compare my experience in these situations with President Bush’s recent failure to secure cooperation from the Saudis regarding oil price and production. Many have criticized the president for not taking a stronger position, believing that he simply needed to “put his foot down” with the Saudi king. Nevertheless, I think this is a very simplistic appraisal of the situation. Our problems with the skyrocketing price of oil go far beyond “tough talk”. They are a reality that we face in a world where the influence of the United States has been eroded by increasing international hostility, and challenges from rising powers such as India and China. While still the world’s largest economy, our leverage has diminished – particularly in regards to a resource which is essential to our economic vitality and for which we currently have no viable alternatives.

As you may have guessed from this article, I’m not the world’s greatest poker player. In my business experience I have witnessed firsthand the disastrous consequences when leaders attempt to bluff their way into a position of strength, only to have that bluff called. This is often devastating as a leader has to choose between losing something that is essential, or face the humiliation of begging and apologizing to recover it. Our dependence on oil, and hence our compromised leverage, is clearly demonstrated by the fact that while gas prices have increased oil consumption has largely remained the same. While President Bush may be blamed for many of the circumstances that have led to rising oil prices, it is ultimately futile to criticize him for his lack of negotiating prowess in this regard. Anyone with the skill to effectively bluff the Saudis or any other major oil producer would do well to seek their fortunes in Vegas.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Why We Keep Referencing the Nazis

I read an article on MSNBC.com today about the back-and-forth between President Bush and Senator Obama over a remark the President made comparing attempted negotiation with hostile states like Iran and North Korea to Nazi appeasement. Obama, who has advocated this type of direct communication, interpreted this remark as a personal attack. While I might be able to write an interesting article about this feud, I’d rather address a topic I think is much more important: why do we frequently bring up Hilter and the Nazis as we grapple with the difficult international conflicts of the 21st century? I believe the answer to this question has a lot to do with our modern foreign policy outlook, as well as our national self-image.

Of all the wars fought by the United States in the 20th century, World War II is the war most frequently referenced – and, if I dare use the term, fondly remembered. Hollywood has produced a slew of movies glorifying the heroic efforts of the United States and its allies in defeating the Axis powers. This heroism has compelled some – such as news anchor Tom Brokaw – to describe the War World II generation as the “greatest generation” in this country’s history. Yet, why do we glorify the efforts of the generation which fought this particular war above those who’ve fought wars before and after?

Think about some of the other wars fought by the U.S. in the 20th century: World War I and the Korean War are generally overlooked, Vietnam is roundly criticized – even the first conflict in Iraq barely shows up as a blip on history’s radar. What makes World War II so special? I believe that the distinguishing characteristic that sets World War II apart from every other major conflict we’ve fought is the clearly defined struggle between good and evil.

Hitler is unanimously regarded as one of the most wicked men to ever live. The atrocities committed during the Holocaust continue to shock the conscience even today. Far more than Hitler’s efforts to conquer Europe, it is his attempt at genocide which still defines the struggle between the Axis and the Allies as a battle between good and evil itself.

It’s interesting to compare World War II to other major conflicts where this good v. evil dichotomy is not so readily apparent. It is hard to clearly define who the “good guys” and “bad guys” were during World War I; we sometimes view the attempt of one country to grab territory from a neighbor as “evil”, but historically speaking this label is arbitrarily assigned by the winners to the losers of a given conflict. While time generally diminishes the potency of such labels, the moral judgments of World War II have remained steadfast to the present.

The impact of World War II on democracy’s self-image is hard to overstate. By making himself a perfect icon of malevolence, Hitler allowed the allied powers to clearly define themselves as the good guys. The U.S. and its allies didn’t merely prevail against a conquering dictator – rather, the forces of good triumphed over the forces of evil. This triumph linked democracy, and the United States specifically, with a perception of righteousness. This perception has had a reciprocal affect on all the conflicts leading up to World War II, and all of those since – in every instance, we define ourselves as the champions of justice. The status of the United States as leader of the free world in the latter half of the 20th century wasn’t just a product of its economic and military might; it stemmed from the moral authority it acquired by defeating the Nazis.

World War II is easy to define as a conflict of absolutes. Despite being a rare exception, our culture seems to promote the idea that these conflicts are the norm. Think about the Star Wars movies – it’s hard to ignore the obvious comparisons between the evil Galactic Empire and the Nazi Regime. Darth Vadar and the Emperor readily acknowledge their own wickedness and even relish it; however, in the real world this is rarely how things work. Most wars stem from the inability of two sides to reconcile their legitimate grievances with one another diplomatically. Both believe they are right, or “good” and that the other is wrong, or “evil”.

It’s fascinating that anytime we seek to legitimize our involvement in a particular military conflict, or define a particular group as evil, we immediately begin referencing World War II and the Nazis. While this reference is certainly potent, I believe that it overused and generally misapplied. Certainly our world continues to provide us with clear examples of malevolence, but we should be able to define these forces on their own merits – not those of a regime which existed more than half a century ago. Exercising restraint in the use of this powerful emotional symbol will allow our nation to analyze its decisions more objectively. We must recognize that World War II does not give us an eternal label of validation and righteousness, or we risk becoming the very things that we despise.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

To Senator Clinton: The End is Near!

I don’t hate Hillary Clinton – I really don’t. Nor am I a raving Obama fan; I just have to call it I like I see it. Several of my recent posts have dealt with apparent reality that Barack Obama is the clear winner of the Democratic primary. After Clinton’s disappointing showing in North Carolina and Indiana (she won the latter, but by a far smaller margin than expected), the New York senator was hoping to again revitalize her campaign with a big win in West Virginia. Nevertheless, while she did win West Virginia by a landslide yesterday, any momentum she hoped to gain has just been squashed; John Edwards has finally decided to endorse a candidate, and he’s throwing his support behind Obama.

I’ve got to hand it to Edwards – his timing is pretty impeccable. If he wanted to hold out as long as possible, yet give his endorsement while it was still relevant this is probably the perfect moment. Despite the fact that many political pundits were already calling the race for Barack, Hillary’s lead in West Virginia and Kentucky still left room for a tiny bit of doubt. Edward’s endorsement is sure to be seen as a watershed moment, and will be endowed with a large share of the credit for Obama’s eventual primary victory.

Now I realize that Edward’s supporters aren’t all going to line up behind Obama just because of this endorsement; however, it will serve as a powerful symbol to the remaining uncommitted superdelegates who wanted to play it safe and withhold their votes until the winner was plainly obvious. As the party’s powers come to the unanimous decision that Barack is the inevitable nominee, they will bring tremendous pressure to bear on Senator Clinton to bow out of the race. Bill and Hillary Clinton have both been called many things – but “stupid” isn’t one of them; if they want to avoid being labeled as pariahs they’ll step aside and work to unify the party for a victory in November.

It is because of this that I hereby declare my official “Senator Clinton Campaign Deathwatch!” At the risk of sticking myself out there for future scorn, I think it’s safe to say that we’re seeing the final weeks, if not days of the Hillary’s run president.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

To Senator Obama: Assume the Sale!

I read an interesting article about Senator Obama’s reaction to yesterday’s primary in West Virginia where Hillary Clinton won by a large margin. According to the article, Obama spent very little time in that state, or attempted to undo Clinton’s anticipated victory – instead, it appears that he is turning his attention to states that are important to the general election. I think this is a wise approach for him to take – simply put, it’s time for Obama to assume the sale.

I give this opinion, not as a committed Obama supporter, but simply as someone who appreciates good strategy. Every major news publication I read has declared that the Democratic primary is essentially over (often they include an asterisk and a footnote stating, “This time we really mean it!”). Now that Obama has added a lead in superdelegates to his existing lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, his best strategy is to stop campaigning for his party and begin his general election campaign.

What does this mean for Obama? First, it means he should stop running advertisements for the primaries and only run advertisements targeted at the general election. Let Hillary run as many attack ads against Obama as she wants (or can afford), the Obama camp should remain silent. No rebuttals, no more debates, no more mention of Senator Clinton’s name. Barack needs to treat Hillary as if she were a non-factor. Such a display of confidence would make Clinton’s continued efforts appear pathetic and futile – like someone attempting to spit into the wind.

In business there comes a point where a good salesperson will stop trying to persuade the customer – instead he/she will simply pull out an order form and show the customer where to sign. I believe the Democratic primary has finally reached this moment, and it’s time for Senator Obama to make such an assumptive close. Such a demonstration will not only secure his victory in primaries, but serve as an important sign that he has the mettle for the general election.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!