To my mind, this is the scariest passage of Green's article:
"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. 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."
Loyalty before competence? Can anyone say Rumsfeld, Brownie, and Alberto Gonzales?
Marc Ambinder, an Atlantic associate editor, blogs about politics and Washington. He might also write the occasional post about aviation, national security, and cognitive neuroscience. Mostly politics, though.
| 
To my mind, this is the scariest passage of Green's article:
"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. 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."
Loyalty before competence? Can anyone say Rumsfeld, Brownie, and Alberto Gonzales?
Posted by Kerry Kathman | February 12, 2008 3:42 PM