wasteoflife:

What are you, 12 years old?? It is well-known historical fact that the primary factor for the Clintons' failure to enact healthcare reform in '94 was due to their obstinance & ignorance of how the game in DC is played. Specifically, they arrogantly presumed they could ram through their version - without taking into consideration the thoughts, needs, and desires of the congressional members necessary to enact the very same legislation. Such hubris was a political faux pas of the highest order.

As for the other trainwreck Josh refers... Uhm, the woman went from Ms. Inevitable to uh-oh in record timeframe. Her campaign was a veritable three ring circus full of strong personalities all doing their own thing (see: "too many chiefs; not enough indians"). The bedlam devolved into a morass - and cried out for someone to play the role of Executive to restore order, and a semblance of calm. Naturally, being as it was her campaign and all, that person should've been Hillary. She didn't. Her campaign failed. End of story.

So, yes, Josh nailed it. Train wreck. Twice. And many of us have justifiable concerns that Foggy Bottom will prove to be her personal trifecta. The situation there, after 8 years of incompetence and sabatoge, requires a skillset that many doubt HRC possesses.

Personally, I felt that she'd have been an ideal fit as either head of DHS or FEMA.

Brad DeLong was there and here's what he had to say in 2003 about Sen. Clinton's health care reform performance.

My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

I think coralsea has summed up very well the "trainwreck" that was here presidential campaign.

What does being "well liked and respected in the world" show about executive management skill?

What does having the "spine" to tackle big (but ultimately failed) projects show about executive management skills?

What do 18 million primary votes show about executive management skills? Starting from scratch and getting 18 million primary votes would be amazing. Starting with huge name recognition, starting with a lot of superdels committed to her even before the primaries began, starting with deep ties within the Democratic party, starting with the support of a popular former President, starting with all of that and ending up losing to a freshman Senator with "Hussein" for a middle name? What does that show? It was hers to lose, and she somehow managed to lose it. (Not to take away from Obama's skill at managing his campaign, fundraising, etc. But thinking back on it all, I'm still floored by the fact that Hillary didn't walk away with a victory, considering the huge advantages she had going into the primary season.)

I think she has a lot of things going for her that would make her a good choice for SOS. The ones you mentioned, the "spine" and being well liked and respected around the world, would be at the top of the list. Her history of executive management doesn't go in the plus column, but hopefully she's learned to pick better advisors.

What do Josh Marshall, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd and Andrew Sullivan have in common?

To be perfectly blunt, Josh doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about when it comes to "executive leadership tasks." Has Josh ever been an executive of any relevant historic caliber? Has he ever taken on what he calls a "leadership task"? Has he ever hired anyone above accountant or lawyer or summer intern?

Nope.

Josh's ruminations about executive leadership tasks are honestly beyond his own skill set. He doesn't know what an executive does, let alone what skill sets an executive should possess.

Because if Hillary Clinton truly had no leadership skills, she could not have amassed 18 million votes in favor of her leadership of the entire country, she could not have been elected nor reelected to public office, she could not command any respect whatsoever from any quarter. The facts on the ground are that a majority in the country want her to be SoS, and a majority in New York feel she has championed them well in her role as their senator.

Therefore, Josh is biased. And in being biased, he himself does not meet even the basic standards of good journalism.