Obama's honesty was on full display during the Nevada debate.

The best example was his response to the question ask of all three: "What is your greatest weakness.?

Obama was honest and forthright, acknowledging he needs a staff to help keep him organized. Clinton responded with the pat politician's answer that she often became impatient when she couldn't get things done as quickly as she would like. On the PBS newshour tonight, both Mark Shields and David Brooks called her on it. They both expressed the fact that this is the most common answer any politician gives to this question. One of them (I don't remember which) said when he heard it he felt like throwing up. How refreshing it would have been for Clinton to say acknowledge a true weakness. Her temper, perhaps? (Just putting that out as a possiblity, not saying she has a temper, so let's not make this a thread about that, O.K?) I wouldn't have held such an acknowledgement against her; it would have made me more sympathetic towards her and feel bettter about her should she become the eventual nominee. Edwards said something about being too compassionate. That's a weakness? Perhaps an Edwards supporter can fill in the details. Brooks and Shields made clear were very unimpressed with his response, as well.

In any case, like Brooks and Shields, I appreciated Obama's honesty. It's a big reason why I support him. Will it help him win, or give an advantage to his opponents? I honestly don't know, but I'm hoping Americans will recognize this commendable aspect off his character.

He does not have a grasp on anything and depends on advisors to manage everything and he is just there as a figurehead
Honesty is good, but does not excuse such a flaw.

If he means what he said, he does not get his hands dirty and depends on his crew to handle everything.

Congratulations on knowing how to twist the truth so very inefffectively.

He thought he was giving a BS job interview answer "I'm too messy" but he admitted that he is not involved in the machinations of his campaign/policy and that he is just there to be pretty and read the script. ie no substance.

don't really think..it's just Obama's bad- hillary's good..rinse repeat, rinse repeat.

with false accusations... hmmm.... wonder where you would get that

"hillbot" LOL

What a silly answer. And what is worse is his bizarre vision as President: he just wants to be the uniter/thethinker/let others run the government as he cannnot.

Odd

She said, "I will run the government" when I President, as if she will not delegate authority to anyone. Does she want to be President or an ineffective Queen? No President runs the entire government by themself. If that's her management model, it's a big reason to vote against her. We don't need a control freak in the White House.

I saw what Obama said yesterday and what he said earlier in the newspaper. I was stunned. It was an odd admission that he wants to be the visionary while someone else runs the government.

If you didn't watch the debate, then you really have nothing to go on. Watch the debate and get back to me if you wish.

And that's not what he said at all. You probably watched a short clip and not the full response. Typical media spin.

because clearly you need to pay closer attention.

about being the visionary president and let someone else run the government. I saw him get called on it, and I wondered if anyone would call him on it as he was saying it, because it sounded--odd.

He must be a leader. Not sit on a mountain and suggest visionary ideas and unite the citizenry while others clean his desk and wipe his...

Fine. I respect my own opinion and the opinion of Brooks and Shields (two of the most grounded political commentators, in my view) more than some Clinton partisan on DU spinning the spin. I saw what I saw and heard what I heard and it was the answer of a true leader who isn't afraid to express a weakness. Obama's strongest asset is that he listens to a variety of viewpoints and doesn't give pat political answers. We need that in a President. Obama exhibited true leadership during that debate.

You are entitled, of course, to your contrary and incorrect view.

The media HATES CLINTON. They are right-wing propaganda. They will attack Clinton every time. The second you start listening to the media as your guide you are selling your soul.

Pathetic. Did they pick on her so much they made her cry? Or was the cry honest? Who knows?

FYI, I held my opinon before watching them tonight, and it was expressed by some others here yesterday on the debate thread during the debate.

Goodbye.

er I mean propaganda machine. It is a shame that democrats so easily sleep with the enemy when it seems to favor their candidate. Because, it will end, you know. When the general election starts, the democrats will be trashed like they were with Clinton /Gore /Kerry.

embarrass her at every damn opportunity.

Can we say, "With another eight years of a DLC Clintonian Executive Branch, we'll have non-stop scandal-mania.?" :thumbsdown:

Obama's just not what America needs to lift it from the depths of the bush death spiral.

Hell, she can't even admit when one of her surrogates makes a mistake (i.e. Johnson).

Frightening. I agree, we don't need another President like that!

remarks and his "apology".

Joking about his weakness with paper/details is actually smart.

1. it makes him funny and seem human. it's a good image because it highlights his LEADERSHIP capabilities

2. it is a trap to those who try to equate such a flaw with incapacity to manage.

hillary fell into that trap in her response and he made her look foolish, suggesting thta bush's management skills certainly dont help him when he fails at good judgement and fails to bring people of different views together.

it's extremely smart politics.

3. it sets a tone and response to a general election contest versus executives like romney, rudy and huckabee

they would come after him on these management issues and he's already building a popular persona as a guy who just leads, but doesn't micro-manage. a decision maker not a paper-pusher. a flawed leader who is surrounded by sharp people.

I thought it was unfortunate for her that her impatience/temper seemed to manifest itself in several subsequent answers.

I also don't find him straightforward. He mislead on his association with Rezko and kept changing his answers as new information came out.

That house deal was just in 2005. His excuse about making a "boneheaded mistake" does not inspire confidence in me that he will be an effective president.

I was bothered in the recent debate that on energy he did not reveal that he voted for the Bush energy bill which was short on renewables but a huge giveaway to big energy companies. It took Clinton to bring that out.

She openly talked about the oil companies windfall profits/ Obama was silent on that issue.

Shit, my desk at work is messy and I still think I'm pretty good at my job...

(I posted this in another thread last night, but seems appropriate here. Both Clinton and Edwards responded with an appropriate BS prepared answer for this type question and avoided the trap. No idea what Obama was thinking when he brought this up.)

The reason it is a poor answer is not that he has a messy desk (or a neat one), it is that he brought it up and characterized this trait as the "worst". His answer does give us a couple of clues about his personality, probably a lot more than he intended.

In the general population, people who are "clean" desk view "messy" as a failing, much like "morning" people view "night owls" and might fault them for sleeping later. (Here I am posting in the middle of the night and yes I have a messy desk.) Any "messy desk" executive has to have assistants to help ensure that they are successful; while Obama said that he had good staff to compensate, his describing this as his worst fault suggests that he really doesn't have this under control. Losing documents within minutes goes a bit beyond just a messy desk.

Many of the most successful entrepreneurs and high tech executives are "messy desk" and thrive by creating environments that eliminates or delegates most of the bureaucratic functions, eliminates anything with low payoff, and frees them to leverage their talents to solve problems in new ways. I do not remember any of them volunteering something like this about themselves.

Seeing this as a fault also indicates some issues with self confidence, possibly that common trait of many very smart and successful people who still are afraid of somehow being found out as an imposter. Not enough info to really get into this at such a late hour.

At a minimum, every job applicant is counseled to expect this type question and have a ready, if totally BS, answer. Otherwise, it shows they are unprepared and fail to take adequate care of information in a hostile environment.

I wonder if Obama brought this up preemptively in order to "put it behind him", somewhat like his drug use in high school.

did not appreciate either response.

how warm he was, (getting the only laughs and applause), and the pundits all say either HILLARY "won," looked "presidential," or just that Obama looked weak. 5th R.!

Screw the pundits, they're scoring this as a technical debate when it's really a battle for best impression. I think that the crowd told us who made the best impression.

Yeah. I just don't like that newspaper editorials saying "Hillary won" because people who didn't see the debate may just take their word for it.

And are still undecided probably won't make up their mind until they see their own state's debate, IMO.

That is her true weakness. As well as being "hands on" and shoving things through her way, or no way.

Not keeping track of paper is pretty minor in comparison.

And he's got her running around telling people about her biggest fault.

...with the loud volume and rapid speaking.

That was just something that occurred to me while I was watching the debate. Thank God that Obama didn't have any papers on the table that he could've sent flying to show us his weakness. lol.

I really didn't like Edward's answer, "sometimes I just care too much"...ugh.

I thought it was so telling of the thing about her personality that grates so many people the wrong way. And now she's running around bragging about her pushy personality, it's kind of funny.

The thing about the CEO comment, Obama was saying that we needed a President who would have brought the Ameican people together to care about the 9th ward, and that is what would have made the difference. It was a very powerful statement and clarified the change leadership can make.

why didn't she know that Mark Penn works for the very same sovereign funds she was decrying? Seems like somone is out of the loop.

Clinton, demanding transparency, fails to disclose chief aide's ties to UAE wealth funds

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/16/44826/9286/677/437652

out there saying all kinds of crazy stuff about Obama. In fact, if she doesn't do a good job of reigning in her staff in the future, she'll be proving she's no good at what she says is her greatest asset.

in a job interview to throw off the job candidate.

Clinton and Edwards answered it correctly. You are not supposed to

actually state a weakness. Even a High School kid can figure this out

when applying for a job at McDonalds :dunce:

Thanks for making my point. My vote is for honesty.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

I value honesty, you value the "right answer." Admitting a true weakness is a sign of strength and confidence.

I get it. It's perfectly clear. No need for you to elaborate any further, I appreciate you clarifying the difference in our views.

Thats why you look at it as weakness. You've been brainwashed by Bush. And Probably why you feel so comfortable with Hillary. Because she acts in many ways just like Dubya.

sound bites on how weak he is.


There sure are a lot of fools using the tubes. IQs of gnats:dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

at Edwards's and Clinton's answers.

"I care too much."

"I want to get too much done."

At least neither said they were a perfectionist.

And at least they didn't make them liken themselves to a vegetable or fruit. We would've had a table full of avocados!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4089155

And welcome to DU!

you NEVER admit an important weakness that Republicans can use to attack you.

"I'm disorganized" is commonly used by people who want to be seen as "visionary leaders." To them, organizing and detail work is for the lower level people to take care of. No rational person elects a Pres. on the basis of whether s/he personally keeps his/her desk neat.

Obama's answer is no more honest or dishonest than either of the other two candidates' answers. He did the right thing, but so did they.

and that quality is gifted to "The Genuine Article" in Obama.

I also liked how Obama complemented his wife when the candidates were asked when they made the decision to make a serious run at The Presidency. Michelle is extraordinary. :loveya:

But that is the voice of God telling me that directly.

is not good at keeping things organized and that he has a tendency to be easily overwhelmed and distracted to the point that he doesn't remember where he puts things. These are not good traits for anyone in very demanding, high stress positions.

then he can't run the government. Organizational takes time and mental energy and many gifted leaders don't give a damn and have people do things for them. It is OK to back HRC, and not Obama, but don't pretend that this is a good reason...

I've had a couple of friends out of work and I know one of the things they're told is to give that sort of answer when they're asked what their weaknesses are.

Since these two are seeking a job, I guess that's appropriate.

He managed to do pretty well as president.

I prefer a leader who can focus on the big picture and not get distracted by where to put the paperclips. Creative thinkers often come short in organizing skills while those focused on details often fail to see the big picture.

This makes me think better of Obama--but then I'm one of those ENTP types.

many brilliant leaders and MANAGERS are known to be sloppy.

to attack him on this funny issue is to attack pretty much every doctor in america, calling them incompetent... and to also attack every good business leader who could care less about tracking paper.