This is the most common closing question in a job interview. We have all had it. We all know what we should say, and what we shouldn't.
So...Imagine you are an employer, and you ask Obama: "Why should I hire you?'
And he answers with a controlled, critically considered reply. He knows he has to close the deal, and outline how his qualifications and his understanding of the job requirements are a match for our needs. He does this carefully and enthusiastically to show his confidence, and sell us on why he is the one we are looking for.
Again...Imagine you are an employer...And you ask McCain the same question: "Why should I hire you?"
He starts to answer your question, and then changes course to instead tell you why you shouldn't hire the other guy for the job. Rather than outline his skills, understanding, and plans for the position; he spends the entire answer on a negative tirade that focuses completely on debunking the qualifications of his competition. He leaves you annoyed because he didn't answer your question, and amazed that he broke the common held rules where you never leave the interviewer with a negative impression. Instead of dazzling you, he leaves a bad taste in your mouth and the impression that he is a blameless complainer that accepts no accountability for his own decisions, words, or deeds.
What do you do?
Who do you hire for the job?
Because in reality you are the boss in this election? The entire process is a huge job interview. Both have been given ample time to answer our questions on the economy, the war, and other domestic & international issues. Both have had a chance to role play the job by picking a VP Candidate to run along side of them. Both have had the chance to get their feet wet with the economic meltdown.
We have had a chance to check their references. Many have offered good references. Many have offered bad. Some even came to the interview with letters of reference, and still others were given letters of recommendation as the selection process continued.
Now use your head here. You want to make a fair decision. You are looking for the most highly qualified person for the job. You have to block our rumors. You have to block out attack ads. You need to focus on actions, not just words. As an employer, when have you ever relied on the individuals themselves to give you answers about the other guy applying for the same position? When does an employer ever ask a candidate to function as a reference for the guy they are in competition against? That is just bad business. So you have to filter out the attack ads, the hearsay, and the finger pointing. However, you do have to consider the amount of finger-pointing and character attacks, as they are to some degree an accurate judge of the type of person you are considering for the job. What does it say about the person when they are consistently negative about everything while being evaluated? What does it say about an applicant who is positive and confident in themselves without having to result to negativity to sway your opinion?
So in the interview as John McCain only was willing to vaguely give details of his plans, and pepper everyone with "that one" type of attacks on the competitor for the job, what impression of him does that give you for your hiring decision.
Likewise, when Senator Obama was asked about his tax plan, he gives details and withholds attacks on McCain unless provoked, and even then my impression is that he does it there reluctantly. We all saw this in the debates. What impression are you left with by his manner of answering, where details matter over attacking catch-phrases?
How do you feel about an applicant that calls his competition names? Or an applicant that speaks only in negative terms, giving clever & inaccurate names to his oppositions plans and details? What does it say about this person? Is he a bully on the playground? A know it all who hates the smart kid? Is he jealous of the qualification his opponent has, and he wishes he possessed himself? What is his motivation in being so angry and negative? Does he not see that I am scribbling things on the application as he becomes increasingly agitated? What about an applicant who insists he is better qualified for the job because you haven't been careful enough in considering the qualifications of the other guy! His underlying answers here are telling you he thinks you are stupid and missing the point, whereas you see the point and think he is making a bigger deal of it than it warrants. These kinds of arrogant hires never work out. Nothing is ever their fault. They always blame someone else for their problems on the job, at home, and everywhere in between. You just pray for the day they quit!
So...As the employer...Who do you hire?
The man with the plan, the ability, and the determination to get it done?
OR...
The man that wants it real bad, and you can tell...But who barely answered your questions, begs for the job, and promises he would work really hard if you gave him the chance?
For me, as an employer, a taxpayer, and a person more politically aware than most, the choice is painfully clear. I am going to hire Barack Obama for the job of President of the United States of America.
I have come to this decision after careful consideration of both applications. Remember, I got the first shot at John McCain's application in 2000. And back then I was eager to hire him, but the Nation liked Dumbya better, so I didn't get to cast my vote for him.
Since then, like any other employer I have kept an eye on the guy I thought promotable before to see if he really has what it takes, or if he is going to self destruct. In McCain's case, he self-destructed. His arrogance and sense of entitlement for the position has trumped his actual qualifications. His need to make the voter happy (brown nosing the boss to get a promotion) has made him the poster child for "flip-flopping." Moreover it has caused him to make some terrible career decisions that as his employer I can't ignore if I am considering promoting him. This job demands sound judgment, consistency, and rational thought. Senator McCain has shown little of any of these key competencies. From his random choice of Sarah Palin, to his erratic approach to terror, and his thoughtless rubber-stamp agreements with President Bush; McCain has proven critically inadequate for the challenges of the job, and in fact has voided all merits I saw in him at 2000.
Senator Obama however was launched onto the national stage 4 years ago, and has been a consistent, intensely rational, and compassionate politician. Ever the voice of reason and change, he filed his application back at that former National Convention and we have all been evaluating it ever since. We saw a leader then. His performance on the job has been with great merit, consistent delivery, and careful consideration. He has not rushed to judge anything, and we have not seen in him a tendency to swing wildly in position just to satisfy the whim of the voters. He has not been afraid to articulate his convictions and defend them vigorously, even when unpopular. He has shown himself a careful decider unafraid to put ego aside and ask for expert advise, rather than to be a "maverick" and go it alone without consultation. He has been vetted over a 4 year period by not only his own party, in what was historically the longest and most comprehensive race for the nomination ever undertaken. He has not only motivated the youth vote, but kept them intimately interested in the process. He had a plan for changing the electorate of this nation, and it looks as though he has followed through successfully. He used hope to motivate, and not fear. All in all, he has done a terrific job as a State Senator and then as a Senator for his State. He has remained calm, resisted personal attacks, and kept his nose out of the "guilt by association" game. He has proven himself a uniter and "presidential" on several occasions and in several situations.
So who will you pick America?
In four days, your decision is due.
Do you hire a person with a well articulated plan, an articulated understanding of the needs of the nation, and a confident conviction to do what is right in the face of great challenges?
or...
Do you hire the person that says he knows how to do the job, what to do, and who will fight...But can't tell you how he will do it, what he will do if he gets hires, and who he is going to fight with?
I think this choice is fairly clear.
Barack Obama is the ONLY candidate on the ballot this coming Tuesday who is QUALIFIED to be Commander in Chief.
So I say, "Congratulations Senator Obama, you're hired."
What say you?