Leadership vs. Policy Maker

There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton's campaign has faltered these last few months ranging from arrogance to, simply put, poor planning. There is one fundamental element that the Clinton campaign fails to grasp that still undermines her chances.

Voters elect Presidents based largely upon leadership qualities not policy positions.

The Democratic Party has, ever since the depression era, reflected the values held by a majority of Americans on most policy issues. Social security shall not be privatized, universal healthcare, the environment, jobs, unemployement benefits, minimum wage, labor issues in general and on and on.

Why are the Republicans ever able to win given these 'proper' positions held by every Democratic Presidential candidate for the past 50 years or more?

Leadership.

The Clinton campaign is falling into this trap. They think people want their candidates to be right on all the issues before they vote for them. This may be the case in liberal congressional districts, but it is not the case in most other instances.

Carter got beat because he looked weak against the Iranians during the hostage crisis.

Mondale got beat because he was part of Carter's weak administration.

Dukakis got beat because he looked ridiculous in a helmet on top of a tank.

Clinton won because George Bush I was painted as an elitist wimp.

Dole got beat because he was leader in a Senate that was outmanuevered by Clinton over the government shutdown, thus looking weak.

Gore got beat (the race was close enough to be stolen) because he offered no vision of leadership, just the proper policy positions.

Kerry got beat because of the swiftboating which made him look weak.

All of these examples are of course over simplifications, but the kernel of the overall problem with each of the candidates is represented by these points.

None of these guys got beat because they were right or wrong on the issues. That is why it puzzles me that Hillary's campaign has run the, I am a good policy maker who is right on the issues campaign. Obama is also largely right on the issues as well, but he spends far more time talking about leadership, vision and so on.

When people enter the voting booth and are pulling a lever in the Presidential Race they are less concerned about who will draft the best legislation, a congressperson's job anyway, as opposed to who will provide steady, consistent leadership for the country for the next four years.

Look at it this way. By their nature, leaders tend to draw people together for a common purpose while policy makers divide up who gets what, where, when and how.

This is why Obama leads Clinton currently in this race, and it is why he will likely be the nominee when all is said and done. Even this morning Clinton's top campaign strategist positied that she was the best choice essentially because of her policy choices and experience getting legislation through the system.

The important lesson that liberals like myself and Democrats in general need to remember is that simply being right does not mean you should or will win. We also need to remember that voting based on leadership qualities as opposed to policy positions is not somehow stupid, in fact it makes sense.

Presidents are leaders, implementors, executives, commanders, appointers and so on.

Legislators are policy makers, authorizers, approvers, disbursers and so on.

more like this at DebatablePoltiics