Yet another way Hillary is like Bush: loyalty trumps competence and judgment

Thanks to Kevin Drum for his post which alerted me to this topic.

"This topic" is specifically about the dismissal of Hillary's now former campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle. However, in a more general sense, the topic is about another way in which Hillary is just like George W. Bush.

The source for this analysis is an article on The Atlantic's website by Joshua Green entitled "Inside the Clinton Shake-Up." The entire article is worth a read, and I plan on discussing almost all of it in other posts.

This post, however, will focus on just a few excerpts. Green discusses the arrogance displayed by Hillary's campaign in general. In his opinion it is

an arrogance that I think is the key to understanding all that has gone wrong for the Clinton campaign.

Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination. If she wins—as she very well might—it will be in spite of her original approach.

I agree (what a shock!). I complained about this back in August after Hillary ran her first TV ad, in which she kept mentioning Bush. I said "This ad's invocation of Bush also shows a real arrogance to me because Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination. It gives the appearance that she has already ordained herself to be the nominee." But enough about me for the moment. Let's get to the heart of the matter.

No one could have predicted Barack Obama’s sudden rise, though the Clinton campaign was slower to recognize it than most. Solis Doyle’s failure is another matter. As much as Clinton touts her own “executive experience” and judgment, she made Solis Doyle her campaign manager because of Solis Doyle’s loyalty, rather than her skill, despite a trail of available evidence suggesting she was unsuited for the role.

(emphasis added). Please, dude. Get it right--it's 35 years of experience. ;-)

Anyhoo, Green provides plenty of detail of problems with Solis Doyle and then describes some of the unsuccessful efforts by those around Hillary to get rid of Solis Doyle.

Concerns about Solis Doyle have preoccupied many in the campaign for several years. Clinton insiders say that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, launched an unsuccessful bid to remove Solis Doyle while on vacation with the Clintons two years ago. Two top campaign officials told me that Maggie Williams, Hillary’s former chief of staff (and, as of Sunday, her campaign manager), also sought and failed to have Solis Doyle removed two years ago. Last year, some of Bill Clinton’s former advisers, known as the "White Boys," lobbied to oust her, too.

But because of Solis Doyle’s proximity to Hillary Clinton, because she demonstrated the loyalty and discretion Clinton so prized, and because no one appeared capable of challenging Clinton’s presumed status as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, nothing was done. "What Patti has that is real power is the unquestioned trust and confidence of the candidate," Paul Begala, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s campaigns, explained in an on-the-record interview last year. "That makes her bulletproof."

And as all this was going on, and as Obama was gaining on Hillary, what did she do?

Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else.

And then Green hits the bullseye:

This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.

BINGO! I will keep saying this over and over: Hillary Clinton is just like George W. Bush. That is the main reason why no one should vote for her. It's not about policy. It's about character and personality. Hillary operates the same way as Bush, and she will do that if she is elected. Not only will she reward loyalty, I am telling you now that if she is elected President, one of the first things she will do is set out to get "revenge" on anyone who did not support her or that she feels has wronged her in any way.

I have said repeatedly (here, here, here, here, and here) that this campaign has shown that Hillary is not as smart as people think and that she lacks good judgment. Green's reporting confirms that and provides more evidence. Choosing a campaign manager is nowhere near as difficult or important as the issues that a President must face every day. If Hillary can't show good judgment regarding a campaign manager, how can anyone think she can make a good President?

Let me put this matter another way. If Hillary's "35 years of experience" cannot enable her to pick an effective campaign manager, those "35 years" damn sure are not going to help her as President.

We are almost at the end of eight years of having a President who places loyalty above all other considerations and who lacks good judgment. We damn sure don't need another.