Education & Careers » Hillary Clinton

Hillary, Obama & the Cost of Conflict

Marcus Varner — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:55:28 +0000

Conflict can be good for an organization, but not when it is as long, drawn-out, overly personal, and in the public spotlight as the Democratic contest between Hillary and Obama has been. No, there comes a point when organizations must say, “Enough is enough, kids. You, put down the fork. You, put down the scissors.” Conflict, when taken to excessive levels, can hurt an organization.

Meditate momentarily on the tale of Obama and Clinton. Both have the potential to “make history.” Both represent the values of their party (and let us not forget that’s what these primaries are about: picking a candidate that will ensure the party’s interests in the White House and, oh yeah, actually get elected). Coming into the primaries, the Democratic Party had a huge amount of momentum over the Republicans. Now that the applause, the speeches, the rolling victories of January and February have faded, we still find Obama and Clinton grappling doggedly. We also find much of their party’s momentum has been sapped away. It is now very likely that the Democrats will face a fairly even contest versus the GOP come November. Conflict has wasted their advantage.

Let this serve as an allegory for any company, family, government, or political party. Conflict has to be controlled. You can’t let it go on for long periods of time. You can’t let it become personal. Especially, you must do it in private. No organization benefits from personal, public, and prolonged conflict. If you are in the midst of a spat with a co-worker, work it out quickly and stay away from personal attacks.

GED Test - The best source for free GED test. Master the GED test with Gedforfree.com. Here you will find a complete preparation course that will help you pass your GED tests.

online distance education Get that degree with the help of SC Online Education.

accredited online degree programs Go to school. Go Degrees Online.

online distance education Go to school. AR Online Education.

associate degree online Go to school. LA Online Education.

“Misspeaking” is Dishonesty

Marcus Varner — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:06:47 +0000

Hillary sought to beef up her foreign affairs credibility by telling a story of her visit to war-torn Bosnia. She said they were under sniper fire and had to forego a planned greeting ceremony, dashing across the tarmac with heads down and speeding away in military jeeps. Wow, that sounds like the trenches of foreign relations experience if I ever heard it. Too bad it’s not true. News footage clearly shows her walking calmly off the plane with Chelsea in tow, smiling and greeting people, cameras flashing, and then, you guessed it, Hillary spoke at the greeting ceremony that supposedly didn’t happen.

Not too long ago, this sort of thing was called lying. When Hillary got called on it, however, she said she “misspoke.” Amazingly, Hillary’s supporters still cheered and waved their flags, and this represents a most troubling trend.

Lying is becoming acceptable. Honesty is considered peculiar, even impossible by some. This problem- let’s call it what it is- transcends every part of our lives, from the Oval Office to the corporate office to the playing field to the classroom to the bedroom. Widespread dishonesty threatens the glue that holds together any organization, namely trust and confidence.

Think about it this way, every nation, company, and family depends on certain social contracts. These contracts are, in fact, promises. For instance, as U.S. citizens, we promise to obey the laws of the land in return for the privilege of living free in this country. Our trust in one another is the only thing that keeps us sure that everyone is going to abide by these promises and that things will remain peaceful and free. In other words, if we can’t trust each other, things will unravel very quickly.

Lying is unacceptable because it destroys that trust. If people can’t be sure that you speak the truth, how can they trust anything you say?

Consider schools that tolerate cheating. That school is putting out students that might or might not have cheated in obtaining their degrees. Suddenly, grades cease to be an adequate measure of a student’s achievement. Magna cum laude means nothing at these schools. Recruiters cannot with any degree of confidence hire students into their organization. The school’s reputation is ruined.

Consider businesses that tolerate dishonest practices. They are constantly at risk of being discovered by regulatory bodies (think Enron). One dishonest practice must be covered up using more dishonest practices. Having promoted a dishonest environment, how can managers then expect their employees to be honest with them, to not fudge their hours, take office supplies home, or sell their secrets? They can’t, plain and simple.

Lastly, consider countries that tolerate dishonesty, especially from their leaders. With a single lie, a presidential candidate negates every promise or claim they have made along the campaign trail. Maybe they were telling the truth this time and that time; but how would we know the difference between when they were or weren’t? We wouldn’t.

How do you feel about Hillary’s “misspeaking”? How does it change your view of her as a candidate? How do you feel about dishonesty?

Education of the 2008 Presidential Candidates

Marcus Varner — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:06:15 +0000

As the nation’s attention is focused on the action of the presidential primaries, we intensely scrutinize each candidate and their fit for the presidency. Amidst the flurry of lofty promises, swelling words, handshakes, debates, and veiled attacks, we try to get a handle on who these people are. Where did they come from? Are they really all they claim to be? Are they fit to preside over the most powerful country on earth with all its problems and promise?

Of course, the answer to these questions largely depends on your beliefs and perspective, your idea of what a president should be. While education is not the sum of a person, we offer the following glimpses into the educational accomplishments of the 2008 presidential candidates:

Mitt Romney - Best known for saving the Salt Lake Winter Olympics and driving progress as the governor of Massachusetts, Romney attended Stanford University for two quarters and finished his degree at Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian, summa cum laude. Four years later, he earned a joint JD/MBA degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude and being named a Baker Scholar for finishing in the top five percent of his business school class. One word is repeated in the media again and again about Romney, and it is no less true about his educational performance: “impressive.”

Hillary Clinton - Equally impressive is the education of this former First Lady. She attended Wellesley College, majored in political science, and actually served as the president of the university’s Young Republicans organization. Events during her undergrad education changed her views, and she soon left the Republicans for the Democrats, never to return. She was so active and successful in political and social activism during her college years that she became the first student at Wellesley to ever deliver the commencement address and received a seven-minute standing ovation. She went on to law school at Yale, where she continued her strong interest in social issues. Clinton is no doubt a strong competitor and apt student. If she was elected, we could expect a strong emphasis on social improvement from the White House.

John McCain – Like his father and grandfather before him, McCain attended the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. Exhibiting his now-familiar “maverick” personality, McCain did not fit into the command-and-control culture of the academy. He enjoyed English literature, history, and government and participated in lightweight boxing. Relegated to low standing, he still wielded an unusual amount of influence over his fellow midshipmen.

He graduated from Annapolis fifth from the bottom of his class before serving as a naval pilot. He would eventually fly in the Vietnam War, escape a number of near-fatal incidents, get shot down and taken prisoner by the brutal Viet Cong, and held by them for five and a half years. During this time, he was refused medical treatment, beaten, kept in solitary confinement for two years, and interrogated. Through it all, McCain refused to give away any information to his captors. Performance in the classroom can be noteworthy. Performance in such brutal, merciless conditions as these earns a whole different level of respect and credibility.

Barak Obama – This junior senator studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before finishing his BA in political science with a specialization in international relations at Columbia University in New York. He then worked for various community organizing groups. In 1988, he entered Harvard Law School and earned his JD degree magna cum laude. He served as an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. Following, he lectured at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School in Constitutional Law. Charges of lack of experience or expertise in Washington or international affairs have haunted Obama throughout his campaign. Obviously, these claims may not be true.

Mike Huckabee - This candidate is self-described Southern boy, unpretentious and uncomplicated. His educational record reflects this. He graduated magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University, completing his bachelors degree in Religion in 2 and a half years. He then attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary but dropped out after one year. For what it’s worth, Huckabee has been awarded two honorary doctoral degrees: a Doctor of Humane Letters, received from John Brown University in 1991, and a Doctor of Laws from Ouachita Baptist University in 1992. Huckabee may be impressive on many fronts; education apparently is not one of those fronts.

harmony remote Information on the harmony line of universal remotes