Do we know whether a candidate will make a good president?

by Cliopatria

HNN welcomes your comments.
You do not have to register to participate in this poll for the first two weeks; after that, registration is required. We do ask all readers to abide by our civility guidelines whether they register or not.

To participate in our poll simply drop down to the bottom of this page and click on the word"Comments."

Food for Thought

Maureen Dowd NYT 2/17/08

Hillary says Obama is “all hat and no cattle.” You’d think she’d want to avoid cattle metaphors, so as not to rile up those with a past beef about her sketchy windfall on cattle futures. She could simply say he’s all cage and no bird.

But is she right, that he’d be a callow leader, too trusting of Republicans, dictators and terrorists? Is Bill right, that voters should not be swayed by eloquence and excitement? (Unless he’s running.)

Or is Obama right, that Hillary would ensure that the acrid mood of the last 15 years would continue to paralyze Washington, appall Americans and shrink our standing in the world?

Who knows? As a Henry James character said about art: “We work in the dark. We do what we can. We give what we have.”

Gingerly, I would like to inject a note of uncertainty into this season of certainty. Covering seven presidential campaigns has made me realize that when it comes to predicting how presidents will perform, “nobody knows anything,” as William Goldman said about Hollywood.

You’d think it would be safe to vote on issues, but politicians often don’t feel the need to honor their campaign promises. I covered Bush Senior saying, “Read my lips: No new taxes.” I also covered him raising taxes and saying, “Read my hips.” I covered W. promising a humble foreign policy and no nation-building. I also covered the Iraq fiasco.

Voters try to figure out who they trust to have life-and-death power over them, but there’s so much theatricality and artifice in campaigns you can get a false impression of who someone is.

And you never know who they will become once they move into the insular, heady womb of the White House — or how they will be buffeted by the caprice of history, and the randomness of crises.

Related Links
Election 2008: Primaries
HNN Hot Topics: Electing Presidents

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

D.C. observer - 2/18/2008

Dowd raises questions about Clinton and Obama, discusses past Presidents, jokes about enemies lists, and concludes that

“All of us have known big shots who keep a check on their real feelings and dark tendencies until they get the top job. Then they throw off the restraints and revert to their worst instincts, bullying others and insulating themselves with sycophants.”

There always will be events a chief executive can’t control. But Dowd is right in pointing out that power can bring out a person’s worst instincts. All Presidents face forces at home and abroad that they cannot control. But they can control their own behavior and to some extent, that of their surrogates. Always keep in mind that candidates and Presidents have the ability to set the tone at the top.

Given the amount of attention candidates receive, you can pick up glimpses of the core person. Some of that is revealed through direct observation in debates and in interviews. Other aspects come out through well-sourced stories that offer glimpses of what is going on behind the scenes of a campaign. Candidates have track records (some shorter, some longer) and they add to them every day that they campaign. Study that track record to see what you can learn about how they make decisions, how they handle conflicting advice and ambiguity, how they assess data, what traits they appear to look for in advisors and strategists, and how they face difficult situations.

The best way to assess how people may react in the future is to look at how they faced adversity in the past. Did they react like spoiled children or responsible adults? Did they point fingers and shift blame? Rely solely on attack dogs? Or stand up and face criticism? Did they weasel out of every question asked about their past actions or explain forthrightly what they did and why? How often did they use surrogates to fling mud at others? Did they strive to take the high ground, answering critics and firing back when attacked -- but not necessarily seeking to crush or destroy those who did not side with them?

We’re in the mix there, also. We voters reward differing behaviors in candidates. But even within the two parties, we don’t all reward the same type of conduct. Some voters revel in name calling and food fights. Others find name calling immature and hyper-partisanship unattractive.

Some people view most issues as absolutists. They may allow almost no wiggle room. It even may be inexplicable to them why people do not view issues they same way they do. (This happens on the left as well as the right). Others find it hard to draw bright lines on every issue. Or may see ambiguity in some matters. They even may somewhat understand why others belong to the opposing party. Some people ask, “can’t we all just get along.” Others believe opponents always must be crushed and destroyed.

Obviously, the candidate has to get as many votes as possible, regardless of what behaviors different voters reward. But I believe that you can learn a lot about future administrations by seeing how candidates handle themselves when challenged as they are running for office.

D.C. observer - 2/18/2008

Are Rich and Dowd really eating their young? Would you rather they re-wrote campaign officials' talking points? Wouldn't that signal they are afraid of fear of thinking independently? Or are intellectually lazy? What's wrong with looking closely at candidates and asking sharp questions about them?

But maybe your analogy of the young can work another way. If adults over praise children, never correct them, and don't let them take some knocks to work out where they stand in relation to others, they don't prepare them for dealing well with other people after they have grown up.

A pampered, over protected child may suffer later because he develops an inflated or unrealistic view of his value. He may develop into a narcissist or an absolutist convinced that only he knows what is right.

Living in a bubble may feel good and parents may prefer to avoid family conflicts by turning a blind eye to emerging problems. But this approach can result in long term harm. Children have to develop the ability to recognize their strengths as well as their weaknesses. And to acknowledge character flaws and work to overcome them. Otherwise they become whining blame shifters. Even after they grow up, nothing ever is their own fault, whatever goes wrong, it's someone else's fault. That's not what I want to see in politicians or Presidents, be they Democrats or Republicans.

I say, the more pundits such as Rich and Dowd voice honest concerns and pierce the bubbles, the better. I may not always agree with everything they write. But at least they aren't re-writing talking points.

Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 2/18/2008

Boy, it sure is fun watching liberals like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich eating their young!

Tim Matthewson - 2/18/2008

DOES HISTORY HELP US PREDICT THE FUTURE?