By Jessica Christensen,
Employment Law Correspondent
The fact that Barack Obama has run a good campaign doesn’t mean he will be a good president. So says Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.
Fair enough. Running a good campaign doesn’t, in and of itself, mean that Obama will necessarily be a good president. I’d argue he has many other qualities that recommend him for the job, but as a matter of logic, Kristol is correct on this point. Case in point: many on both sides say George W. ran a good campaign, and look how that turned out.
What Kristol seems to imply, though, is that the reverse is also true: running a bad campaign doesn’t mean McCain will be a bad president.
But…doesn’t it?
Running a good campaign is hardly the most difficult task that our new president will face. When compared to, say, repairing the economy or conducting mid-east negotiations over nuclear proliferation, isn’t running a relatively competent campaign pretty near the least the next president should be able to do? Can we really have confidence that McCain has the chops to be Commander in Chief if he can’t even command his own campaign?
McCain apologists argue that McCain’s long senatorial record should obscure his embarrassing and clearly disintegrating campaign. Now, there’s no denying that McCain has made valuable contributions during his career. But in “real America” if you show up for the biggest job interview of your life and rant about secret socialist agendas and accuse another applicant of being a terrorist< … you don’t get the job. You get escorted off the premises by security.
