to echo rolla's comment;methinks dr.rotwang got the answer right:

...Ms Fiorina? Is she qualified to run a major company? She took over Hewlett Packard when its stock was 45.36. When she left it was 20.14, a performance of -56%. There was also that unpleasant business with corporate snooping. And laying off 7,000 employees. Sounds like the very model of a Republican titan of industry...

tpm cafe

assuming, of course, it wasn't a trick question.

the revolution will not be televised...

.

≈ Cross-posted from my diary -- Palin and Alaska's Sexual Assault Cases ≈

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

This coming from a CEO who cut HP's stock price in half, laid off 7,000 people, but still got a $21 million golden parachute on her way out the door (HP has since recovered from the Fiorina era).  I don't think she's making any sense here, what qualities do the two positions not similarly require?  Ability to manage budgets, set strategic priorities, negotiate with other powerful entities, holding people accountable?  

....

Sarah Palin doesn't play well with others, as we've seen from her tendency to fire people who disagree with her. I think McCain's explosive temper rules him out as well....they'd be too toxic to create a positive work environment.

Joe Biden strikes me as a harassment suit waiting to happen, based on his big mouth reputation, but he'd probably be fun to work with, and Obama would be the guy you'd want on your team in a high pressure situation, since he doesn't seem like the type to take his stress out on everyone around him.  Besides, wasn't one of the ground rules for his campaign that everyone had to have fun, and there were no prima donnas and attitudes?

"Little people are very stuff-intensive."

I've read his books, the guy is fucking smart. I don't think McCain or Palin are very smart. McCain's been riding his POW record and his wife's money, his campaign was a disaster until Schmidt came along, and he obviously isn't trustworthy. His pick of Palin shows he is a poor judge of character.

Palin, of course, is an ideologue and hack who ran Wasilla into the ground and rewards cronies over competency.

Biden would be my second choice, although I could see him being a sort of absent-minded, talks too much at board meetings kind of CEO. Then again, when it comes decision time, there are few I'd prefer over him.

If Barack Obama was a CEO, he'd be one of the wealthiest men in America.

I've played this little thought experiment a few times and this is the conclusion I come to.  Why on earth would you hire someone who was openly hostile to your company.  Republicans for years have been saying that government is the problem not the solution and when they are in power they prove that is correct.  The Democrats, in my mind, at least have a basic philosophy that government can be an agent for good.

So for me qualifications are secondary to commitment to the company.  Qualifications are hugely important and commitment, in a normal world, wouldn't be an issue, but  I'm not going to hire someone who wants to take my company and drowned it in the bathtub.  

Careerism is not a qualification for president. Ambition in and of itself just doesn't cut it. Feels like we are watching some reality show where the contestant who climbs a tree in X seconds flat is deemed the winner.

"She's not a serious person and she tries to bullshit her way through life."

Agreed. And yet, she must be pretty good at bullshitting because she has been quite successful at it so far.

o Needs to turn a lot of bad situations around. (Needs to recognize those bad situations, first.)
o Needs to stem the flow of red ink.
o Needs to be able to earn the trust of the Board.
o Needs to be able to communicate with stockholders.
o Needs to be able to bring in a strong and competent team.
o Needs to identify long-term strategic goals.

Hiring McCain would be like hiring someone internally, and a frequent supporter of the existing CEO at that. He also fails to properly identify risks or solutions, alienated a lot of his colleagues, and did a terrible job of vetting his #2, who was under investigation during his pick, no less. He wouldn't get a first interview.

Palin's thin resume has too many skeletons already, and her team selection has been rife with picking friends with no qualifications. She might get an interview on the basis of demonstrating good faith in diversity recruiting efforts.

Biden and Obama have their relative strengths.  I think a typical Board (not that there is one) would be more comfortable with Biden and his length of experience, but picking Obama might give a better boost to share prices, and his team of advisers seems to be quality people.