Jane asked me to go into a little more detail on the question of details I mentioned here. The question first came up in the context of the exact details of what a President Kerry would do to fix the Iraq situation, and I expressed some degree of consternation that folks would actually be asking for those sort of specifications -- you know, six months before he'd actually be able to do anything about them. But timing isn't where my problem with this sort of approach lies. Think of a presidential campaign as a long job interview. Sure, you ask questions about hypothetical or likely situations, but what you're really judging in a potential employee, I think, is his or her judgment. You pick somebody you have assessed to think well, make good decisions, that sort of thing -- hire good people and let them do their jobs. It's on that basis that I think you pick a president -- pick somebody good and then to some extent you have to sit back and see what kind of a job they do. Especially when the field of potential employees/presidents is limited to two -- then it's really the only way at all to do it.
11:03 PM
|
