BloggeRhythms

In the last few days, the projected Trump/Clinton battle has taken over the news to the extent that not very much else going on in the world is mentioned at all. 

Making matters all the more frustrating is that the coverage is not only superficial and virtually meaningless, it’s incredibly boring to boot. Which points out how campaigning has changed. In today’s politics, smearing competition in any way possible far outweighs the presentation of platforms and issues designed for the betterment of the nation and society.

The sinking of campaigns into the gutter strikes a particular chord, whereas this writer’s career was spent in sales. Which means that superior product performance and customer satisfaction were the primary objectives at all times. 

After identifying customer’s needs, the sales job becomes explaining, and demonstrating where necessary, how and why one’s product or service fulfills those requirements best. If competition exists, offerings should be presented in a way that highlights particular benefits. Especially in regard to known weaknesses of competitors. Although rivals should never be specifically mentioned, whereas particular reference to others can be taken by prospective customers as indications of underlying fear of them.  

Taking an unworried, confident approach regarding one’s offerings lends an air of professionalism, especially when supported by proof of satisfaction from others with the same or similar needs. And best of all, if the only route competitors can take against you is denigration and defamation, that alone confirms not only your superiority but amplifies their weaknesses.  

Meaning that, sooner or later, to appear worthy of the position both presidential contenders are going to have to present solid, verifiable credentials and possession of required skills and historical proven performance. Unless, perhaps, in both cases it doesn’t happen to exist.

Along the same lines, proof of documented track record, Anne Gearan and Dan Balz headlined their column @washingtonpost.com: “Even supporters agree: Clinton has weaknesses as a candidate. What can she do?

Setting the premise, the authors write: “Hillary Clinton’s declining personal image, ongoing battle to break free of the challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders and struggle to adapt to an anti-establishment mood among voters this year have become caution signs for her campaign and the focus of new efforts to fortify her position as she prepares for a bruising general election.”

And then, Joel Benenson, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster is quoted as saying: “Hillary Clinton is in a stronger position than Donald Trump, but it will be competitive. All these races are.”

Following that, the authors state: “None of these Democrats said they expected Clinton to lose — but many said she could. For the most part, it is her qualities as a candidate that keep her allies up at night, not her fitness to be president, which they categorically do not question. They also lament how exposed these flaws have become during a long primary contest against Sanders, who has profited from suspicion and dislike of Clinton among ranks she now must win over.”

However, after describing how confident “these Democrats” are about Bill’s wife eventually winning the presidency, the authors follow up with: “When Democrats assess Clinton, they tend to zero in on her communication skills: She is scripted and thin-skinned, they say. And with a sigh, they acknowledge the persistent feeling among a lot of Americans that they just don’t like her. Polls long have shown that many voters do not trust Clinton and that a majority view her unfavorably."

[Gary] “Hart said being seen as likable is “about the lowest bar” for a candidate, and yet Clinton has lower likability numbers today than she did when the campaign began. 

“Among other potential problems identified by supporters: Clinton’s unpopularity with white men, questions about whether her family philanthropic foundation helped donors and friends, and lingering clouds from her tenure at the State Department, including her private email system, the Benghazi attacks in which four Americans were killed and her support for military intervention in Libya.” 

Yet, after all that, whereas Bill’s wife’s supporters still think she’d be their first choice for president of the greatest nation on Earth, one has to truly wonder who these people are, why do they accept the dregs of society as their leadership, and how did they sink to that level of self-deprecation?   

Which brings us to today’s update on her. 

Aside from the myriad problems cited above, Bill’s wife yesterday gave the Republicans, and likely Trump if he prevails as their nominee, a tremendous endorsement. 

According to cnn.com, “During a speech in Kentucky Sunday she referred to "my husband, who I will put in charge of revitalizing the economy 'cause he knows what he's doing." 

“The U.S. economy boomed during President Clinton's administration. His economic record is an effective selling point, especially as U.S. growth remains sluggish, and most voters worried about the economy. 

“During Clinton's eight years as president, the U.S. economy added more than 22 million jobs. That's slightly more jobs than were added during the combined 22-year tenure of the four most recent Republican presidents. 

“In the spring of 2000, Clinton's final year in office, a greater percentage of Americans had jobs than any time since records started being kept soon after World War II.” 

While the facts speak for themselves, and Bill’s tenure was indeed a period of explosive economic growth and success, that success was managed by Republican Alan Greenspan. 

Coming from Arkansas, with little economic background, when Bill Clinton was elected POTUS, he had the good sense to reappoint Greenspan, and, according to Wikipedia, “consulted him on economic matters. Greenspan lent support to Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction program.” 

Greenspan himself, was first appointed Federal Reserve chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006, after the second-longest tenure in the position (behind William McChesney Martin.) 

So, here we have Bill’s wife who was either unaware of how her husband achieved Arkansas's economic success, or today believes that Republicans are best for the nation's economy overall. Because it was Republican economic philosophy and fiscal management that built her husband’s economy. 

Therefore, as evidenced by her endorsement of Republican philosophy by selecting her Republican favoring husband to “revitalize the economy 'cause he knows what he's doing," she’s also confirming that Trump’s made the same correct judgment, and well ahead of her. Because he’s already chosen Reagan disciples Steve Moore and Larry Kudlow to revise his tax package. 

Which brings up the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios